Eficacia del gel de Aloe Vera “Sabila” en la Cicatrizacion de heridas superficiales inducidas en Cavia Porcellus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar la eficacia del Aloe vera “sábila “en la cicatrización de heridas superficiales comparado con clostebol en Cavia Porcellus. Se emplearon 3 grupos de estudios los cuales estuvieron conformados por 5 individuos cada uno. Estos grupos representaron el grupo control positivo el cual recibió tratamiento con clostebol, el grupo testigo representado por NaCl y el grupo experimental en el que se usó gel de Aloe Vera. El efecto de la cicatrización se evaluó en base a la Escala visual de Vancouver. Los datos obtenidos mostraron una cicatrización del 96% en el día 10 de tratamiento con Aloe Vera. Un 97.3% de cicatrización en el día 10 para el Clostebol y un 61% de cicatrización para el día 10 en el grupo testigo. Se observa que el Aloe Vera muestra un efecto similar al del clostebol sobre el proceso de cicatrización. Esto sostiene el uso del gel de Aloe Vera como tratamiento complementario u opcional en heridas superficiales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".