Local injection of platelet-rich plasma is effective for non-healing hand wounds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of local platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in treating non-healing hand wounds. METHODS: Data of 80 patients with non-healing hand wounds were retrospectively selected for this study. Among them, 48 patients in the research group received local PRP injections, while 32 patients in the control group were treated with conventional dressing changes. The outcomes assessed included treatment efficacy, safety, frequency of dressing change, wound healing time, duration of hospitalization, treatment costs, wound healing rate, wound infection rate, Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores, Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Tool (BWAT) scores, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores, serum wound growth factors, and patient satisfaction with wound appearance. RESULTS: The research group demonstrated significantly superior outcomes compared to the control group, including higher overall treatment efficacy and wound healing rates. Furthermore, the research group exhibited a significantly lower incidence of adverse events, reduced frequency of dressing changes, shorter wound healing time, reduced hospitalization duration, lower treatment costs, and a lower infection rate. Post-treatment assessments revealed significantly lower VSS, BWAT, and VAS scores in the research group. Additionally, the upregulation of serum wound growth factors was more pronounced in the research group following treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Local PRP injection demonstrates clear efficacy in the management of non-healing hand 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it