MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6893071819 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14225753

Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Novel Technique of Collagen Application Over Meshed Split Thickness Graft for Wound Coverage: A Prospective Study

2021· article· en· W6893071819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProspective cohort studyTrunkPatient satisfactionPain scoreSplit thickness skin graft

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To study the advantages of a novel technique of using collagen sheet over meshed split thickness graft for wound coverage. Methodology: A prospective study was conducted at Department of general surgery at Sheikh Bhikhari Medical College and Hospital, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, India. A total of 25 patients were part of this study intending to follow each patient at least for a minimum of 6 months postoperatively. All patients underwent relevant routine investigations. Patients were regularly evaluated for postoperative complications and outcomes. Patients were asked to provide their objective pain assessments on a Pain scale from ‘0-10’ at regular intervals. For scar assessment, Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was used. Patient’s overall satisfaction was also accounted. Results: Out of 25 patients, 15 (60%) were males and 10 (40%) were females. The majority of patients in the study were in 3rd, 4th and 5th decades. 11 (44%), 8 (32%), and 6 (24%) patients belonged to 3rd, 4th and 5th decade of life respectively. The lower extremity (11, 44%) was the most common area requiring skin grafting, followed by the trunk (9, 36%) and upper extremity (5, 20%) area. The mean VSS score of 25 patients at the end of 1, 2, 4 and 6 months was 0.30, 0.48, 1.04 and 2.17. Out of 25 patients, 1 patient had score more than 4 at the end of 6 months indicating hypertonic scar. Conclusion:With satisfying results obtained in this study, we acknowledge collagen for its ease of use and cost-effectiveness. Furthermore, we consider it effective because of the promotion of epithelialization, reduction of pain and limited complications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicWound Healing and Treatments→French-language works237,207→