Effect of ceramic dressings and silver-impregnated dressings on bacterial load and wound closure: a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wound healing is a series of complex and dynamic processes which occur in several stages. Optimal wound healing is essential for restoring the integrity and function of the affected area. Although medicated wound dressings have been extensively employed to control wound infection, the risks associated with antimicrobials make the use of non-medicated alternatives necessary. Nevertheless, the relationship between the concentrations of medicated wound dressings and their antimicrobial activities, along with their wound healing efficacies, still remains unclear. Non-medicated wound dressings are an alternative to dressings that contain active ingredients acting as antimicrobials or antiseptics. In the present study, the researchers examined the reduction of bacterial load as the primary endpoint and the healing rate as the secondary endpoint, comparing microporous ceramic dressings to silver-impregnated dressings in participants from two outpatient wound management clinics. The study included 25 participants in the silver-impregnated dressing (control) group and 28 participants in the ceramic dressing (study) group. The participants' wounds were assessed through MolecuLight i:X (MolecuLight Inc., Canada) wound tracing and MolecuLight i:X fluorescence imaging to measure the wound size, as well as presence of a bacterial load of >104 colony forming units/g at weeks 1, 2, 3 and 4. The results indicated that there was a significant difference in the distribution over the categories of bacterial load cleared after weeks 1, 2, 3 or 4 in the two groups. Moreover, the bacterial load cleared significantly faster in the study group (p=0.001). Mean wound size was 10.93cm2 (range: 0.10–37.95cm2) in the control group and 11.48cm2 (range: 0.80–60cm2) in the study group. In the maximum likelihood regression analysis, the mean reduction in wound area for the study group was greater than that for the control group. The study concluded that the ceramic dressings could be an effective alternative to silver-impregnated dressings when treating infected wounds.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".