MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036017452

Analysis of a retrospective double-centre data-collection for the treatment of burns using biological cover Xe-derma®

2014· article· en· W7036017452 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrthoptera Research and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurn woundAdverse effectDermisRetrospective cohort studyMedical recordWound healing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Xe-Derma® is a new biological acellular temporary wound cover derived from pig dermis in the form of a mesh of collagen and elastic fibers. It is recommended for use in similar indications as classical pig xenografts. A data collection of 2 burns centres in the treatment of burns with Xe-Derma® was obtained from the medical records of 101 patients admitted from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011. The primary objectives of the study were to assess efficacy and safety when using Xe-Derma® in burn treatment, and to analyse the course of healing. The secondary objectives were to define the suitable spectrum of indications of Xe-Derma® in terms of burn depth, and to evaluate subsequent scarring using the Vancouver Scar Scale. No undesirable systemic effects or adverse device events were observed. The use of Xe-Derma® was not associated with a higher risk of burn wound infection. On the other hand, the infection was the most common cause of Xe-Derma® dissolution. The majority of patients (81.4%) had no signs of Xe-Derma® dissolution. The mean healing time in the group of patiens under review was close to 12 days and mean hospitalization time was almost 14 days. Using Xe-Derma® proved to be effective as a temporary covering for partial-thickness burns with the capacity of spontaneous healing. It proved to be a well-tolerated wound coverage with minimal complications and low level of pain during dressing changes. Xe-Derma® firmly adhered to the wound bed. There was a lower frequency of wound dressing changes and only a minimal rate of wound infection.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicOrthoptera Research and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207