A prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of haruan (channa striatus) spray on clean wounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background \nChanna striatus (Haruan), a fresh water fish indigenous to many tropical countries have long \nbeen regarded as valuable food fish in the Far East. Several studies showed, the Haruan did \ncontain all the essential amino acids and fatty acids uniquely capable of accelerating the \nwound healing and it has anti-nociceptive effect. However so far no human study been done \nto assess the effectiveness of Channa striatus in wound healing. A prospective randomize \ncontrolled trial has been conducted on the effect of Channa striatus Spray versus placebo on \nclean wound to assess its pain control effect and cosmetic outcome. \nMethodology \nHundred and two patients (102) underwent clean elective surgery; post-operatively they are \nrandomized into two group. One group received Channa striatus Extract spray (n=51) \nanother group receive placebo (n=51) on daily basis for 2 week. Then they were follow up on \n2nd, 4th and 6th week to assess the pain control effect based on Visual Analog Pain Score \n(VAPS) and cosmetic outcome based on Visual Analogue Cosmetic Scale (VACS), Wound \nEvaluation Scale(WES) and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). \nResult \nThe patient treated with Channa striatus spray displayed a better outcome in term of pain \ncontrol compared to placebo. During analysis using repeated measure ANOVA, there was \nsignificant difference of patient’s pain score based on VAPS between Channa striatus spray \nand placebo (F-stat(df) = 4.80 (2), p-value = 0.010). In term of cosmetic outcome it showed a \nconsistent significant better result in haruan spray group for all the 3 scoring system which is \nVACS, (F-stat(df) = 2.68 (2) , p-value <0.001), WES (F-stat(df) = 3.09 (2), p-value = 0.048). \nand VSS , F-stat(df) = 1.72 (2) , p-value = 0.011). \nConclusion \nOur study suggest that application of Haruan Extract spray on clean wound has shown a \nsignificant better pain score result and cosmetic outcome on week 2, week 4 and week 6 \ncomparatively with placebo
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".