�쟾痢� �닔遺� �솕�긽�뿉�꽌 MEBO 移섎즺�� �뵾遺� �씠�떇 �썑 �쓨�꽣 �긽�깭 諛� 湲곕뒫�쓽 鍮꾧탳
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the scar formation and hand function between moist exposed burn ointment (MEBO) treatment and conventional skin graft in full thickness hand burns. \nMethod: Prospective comparative study was done between MEBO treatment group and conventional skin graft group. Full thickness bum wound scars on dorsal hand were compared. Scars were assessed with the Vancouver scar scale and other objective measurement tools such as pigmentation, erythema, pliability, transepideramal water loss, thickness and perfusion. Hand function was evaluated by the Jebsen hand function test and Michigan Hand Function Questionnaire. \nResults: Vancouver Scar scale showed significantly better scores in the MEBO group than in the conventional skin graft group. Scar thickness and transepidermal water loss were greater in the MEBO treatment group whereas pigmentation value was greater in the conventional skin graft group. There was no significant difference in the hand function between the two groups. \nConclusion: MEBO application could be an alternative treatment to conventional skin graft treatment in full thickness hand burn wounds. In the future, more studies are yet to come how MEBO treatment may affect the skin condition of the bum injuries.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".