ArticleScientific reports2025
Development of a digital image analysis system for objective evaluation of treatment response in cellulitis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cellulitis is a common skin infection. While changes in lesion color are valuable indicators of treatment efficacy, assessments often rely on subjective judgments. To provide an objective method for evaluating treatment response, we developed a digital imaging system that quantifies red, green, and blue (RGB) values of lesions and calculates the RGB distance between lesions and normal skin. We analyzed 34 patients with cellulitis treated between 2022 and 2025. Clinical images were obtained on days 1 (baseline), 3, 7, and 14. By day 14, the G and B values of lesions increased significantly (G: 115.6 to 135.7, B: 91.8 to 105.5; P < 0.05), while the R values remained stable. The RGB distance decreased significantly from day 3 (64.3 to 53.7; P < 0.05). Patients were classified by Investigator's Global Assessment into Group A (favorable clinical outcome, n = 13) and Group B (delayed clinical improvement, n = 21). Receiver operating characteristic analyses of the RGB distance ratio relative to day 1 showed high accuracy at day 3 (cut-off = 0.62) and day 7 (cut-off = 0.48). A significantly higher proportion of Group B patients had a history of edema. These findings suggest our system provides an objective method for evaluating the clinical course of cellulitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.