Successful Management of a Grade 4 Recalcitrant Sacral Pressure Ulcer in a Diabetic Patient with Adjunctive Ozonated Oil Therapy: A 12-Month Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Pressure ulcers in diabetic patients represent a significant clinical challenge due to impaired wound healing mechanisms. This case demonstrates the successful use of ozonated oil as adjunctive therapy for a recalcitrant grade 4 pressure ulcer in a complex diabetic patient with multiple comorbidities. Case Presentation: A 60-year-old male with type 2 diabetes mellitus (HbA1c 8.2%), hypertension, chronic alcoholism, and liver cirrhosis developed a grade 4 sacral pressure ulcer (6.5 × 6.3 × 2.4 cm) during hospitalization. The wound showed positive cultures for Escherichia coli and Corynebacterium striatum and remained recalcitrant to conventional therapies including pressure offloading, surgical debridement, moisture-retentive dressings, and low-level laser therapy. Following failure of conventional treatments, adjunctive ozonated oil therapy was initiated with twice-daily applications. Over 12 months, the wound demonstrated progressive healing from grade 4 (6.5 × 6.3 × 2.4 cm) to grade 1 (0.2 × 0.2 × 0.2 cm) with complete reepithelialization and minimal scarring. No adverse effects were observed during treatment. Conclusion: This case suggests ozonated oil may serve as an effective adjunctive therapy for chronic pressure ulcers in diabetic patients with multiple comorbidities when conventional treatments fail. The multifactorial therapeutic benefits include antimicrobial activity, enhanced tissue repair, and modulation of inflammatory responses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".