MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6911840097 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.13857085

Prospective Clinical Study to Assess the Novel Technique of Collagen Application Over Meshed Split Thickness Graft for Wound Coverage

2021· article· en· W6911840097 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
KeywordsContractureProspective cohort studyClinical studyDiabetes mellitusSplit thickness skin graftDiabetic ulcersTrunkDiabetic foot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: A Novel Technique of Collagen Application over Meshed Split Thickness Graft for Wound Coverage. Methods: This prospective study conducted in the Department of surgery, Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College and Hospital, Gaya, Bihar, India for 1 year. All cases with a raw area of 5-20% of total body surface area with the need for STSG for wound coverage, irrespective of the sex of patients, were included in the study. Children < 10 yrs and adults > 70 yrs were not part of the study. Results: Causes for wounding requiring STSG included trauma (8 cases), burns (5 cases) and its sequelae contracture (4 cases), diabetic ulcer foot (3 cases) and a case of Meleney’s gangrene. The lower extremity (10 cases) was the most common area requiring skin grafting in this study, followed by the trunk (7 cases) and upper extremity (3 cases). A total of 10 patients had co-morbidities. 2 patients were on treatment for diabetes mellitus, hypertension and congestive heart disease. Out of the other 8 patients, 5 typed II DM on oral hypoglycemic, 2 were on anti-hypertensives, and 1 was on treatment for hypothyroidism. All patients were adequately prepared for surgery. The majority of the patients were discharged after 2nd dressing between 5-11 days. Characteristics of grafted area: Vancouver scar scale (VSS) was used to determine the outcome of the grafted area. A score of more than 4 was considered a hypertrophic scar. The mean score of 20 patients at the end of 2 weeks, 1, 2, 4 and 6 months was 0.13, 0.25, 0.54, 1.07 and 1.48. Since the scoring used to determine the outcome of this technique did not take into account patient satisfaction, the same was individually determined. Conclusion: As observed in the results, this technique has produced a very favourable outcome. However, it requires evaluation of procedure in a large cohort.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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→