Healing after Bruner and McCash incisions for limited fasciectomy in patients with Dupuytren's disease: a randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the healing quality of Bruner and McCash incisions for limited fasciectomy in a randomized clinical trial involving 12 women and 60 men with Dupuytren’s disease. None had had previous surgery on the affected hand, and all were treated between May 2017 and November 2018. Patients were graded according to the Tubiana classification and randomized to Bruner or McCash groups. Scar assessment was performed 6 months postoperatively using four methods: visual analogue scale score, Vancouver Scar Scale score, and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. The mean age of the patients was 61 years, and 72% were Caucasian. The mean time since disease onset was 6 years. Compared with the McCash group, the Bruner group had more concerning postoperative complications including wound dehiscence, pain and hypertrophic scarring. The McCash incision technique had more satisfactory results in terms of fewer postoperative complications, better quality of healing and higher patient satisfaction. Level of evidence: I
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".