Cellular technologies in the management of patients with post-burn scars of various locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness of different methods of cellular therapy in the postoperative treatment of burn scars of various anatomical locations. Material and methods . The clinical material included 102 patients who underwent surgical procedures for correction of post-burn scars. Depending on the treatment protocol, the surgical procedures were performed with or without concomitant cellular therapy. Results and discussion . Patients treated with a combination of surgery and cellular therapy showed significantly better outcomes, as assessed by the Vancouver Scar Scale and Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores, than those who underwent surgery alone. This improvement was seen in both the primary and repeat subgroups. The combination of surgery and cell therapy reduced the average percentage of disability from baseline by more than half. As expected, the results in the primary subgroup were better than those in the repeat subgroup. Conclusions. Cellular technologies represent a promising component in the integrated management of post-burn scars. The use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and autologous adipose tissue in reconstructive and plastic surgery for burn sequelae is safe and effective and significantly reduces the need for repeat surgical interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".