Healing Effect of Hypericum perforatum in Burn Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Burn injury is still the leading cause of mortality and morbidity in burn patients.We comapred healing effect of Hypericum perforatum, silver sulfadiazine and alpha ointments on burn injuries in rat model.Methods: Sixty female Sprague-Dawley rats in an animal experimental study were randomly divided to 5 equal groups as H. perforatum, silver sulfadiazine and (SSD), alpha, gel base and the burn injury left untreated.Wounds were assessed macroscopically and histologic after burn injury and on days 7 th , 14 th and 21 st after treatments.Results: Burn wounds decreased in size on day 7 th in H. perforatum group (P<0.01).Regarding scoring the inflammation, re-epithelialization, angiogenesis, formation of granulation tissue and number of macrophage, the best scores were visible in H. perforatum group, and the worst in the gel base and the burn injury left untreated (P<0.01).Conclusions: H. perforatum was shown to significantly induce reepithelialization, angiogenesis and granulation tissue and decrease the inflammation resulting into a healing process in burn wounds.As H. perforatum is inexpensive and an easily available herbal medicine, it can be considered as a therapeutic of choice to ameliorate burn injuries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".