Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As I prepare this editorial, I am on vacation in Pukhet, Thailand. For most of us, the Tsunami is a passing memory, but for the Thai people, it remains very much in the forefront of their everyday living. Rebuilding has started, and with time, the many devastating wounds caused by the Tsunami will heal, and life will return to normal. However, for some normality will never return. For health care professionals, such emergencies are rather poignant, in that we recognise some of the pain and suffering that these people are experiencing, as the severe trauma and wounding suffered by so many have a familiar tone. In memory of the many hundreds of thousands, who lost their life in the Tsunami, I dedicate this editorial. Being here at this time brings to mind ‘preparedness’ both from a medical emergency perspective and a psychological perspective. Many facilities have ‘disaster planning’, but how many would or could have been prepared for the vast numbers of both dead and injured that the Tsunami created in such a short space of time. What becomes a priority? What issues become critical? How do we get help to those who need it the most on a timely basis? As caregivers, what dangers do we face? These are all questions that some of us face in our day-to-day lives on a much smaller scale. We generally work best in teams, but how could or would we have coped with a disaster on the scale of the Tsunami — probably as best we could! Reflecting on the pain and suffering of these individuals brings focus to the trauma faced by many of those persons suffering from a debilitating chronic wound. This is not in any way reducing the scale of the Tsunami or claiming equivalence in scale but rather that society appears to empathise more with suffering on a grand scale rather than the challenges of individual patient's suffering. It also should remind us that we need to remember the patient as a whole rather than a singular focus on the wound itself. The patient is much more than a wound with more complex situations or medical conditions which has an overriding impact on the wound and its healing. As 2006 begins, we enter the latter half of the first decade of the 21st Century, what can we expect in the wound care environment? Scanning the research arenas, one can predict that we will probably see the more conclusive emergence of more active therapies, in particular, those which are cell-based, with more compelling evidence that is both performance and cost-effectiveness related. It is highly probable that we may also see the emergence of wound diagnostics. These are likely to be more diagnostic aids, pointing us in the right direction, rather than definitive diagnostics. In the wound care arena, we have long been aware of the importance of correct and effective diagnosis. With the emergence of more complex products, we will be increasingly required to use these products appropriately to maximise their impact. As a better understanding of the wound environment becomes available, our ability to tailor our approach and better treat the patient as a whole increases. These are exciting times and with the ability to provide ‘point-of-care’ diagnosis, albeit more indicative than definitive, will improve our ability to treat our patients and their wounds. Prof. Zulifiqarali Abbas, Tanzania Prof. Bishara Atiyeh, Lebanon Dr Adrian Barbul, USA Suzie Calne, UK Dr Robertto Cassino, Italy Dr Celalettin Çelebi, Turkey Dr George Cherry, UK Dr Mike Clark, UK Dr Diane Cooper, USA Dr Ian Darby, Australia Dr Jeff Davidson, USA Dr Sebastian Debus, Germany Dr William Ennis, USA Dr Vincent Falanga, USA Dr Mieke Flour, Belgium Evonne Fowler, USA Prof. Peter Franks, UK Prof. Xiabong Fu, China Prof. Finn Gottrup, Denmark David Gray, UK Dr Satsue Hagisawa, Japan Dr Eva-Lisa Heinrichs, UK Dr Dirk Hollander, Germany Dr Joon Pio Hong, Korea Dr Pamela Houghton, Canada Prof. Kent Jönsson, Zimbabwe Dr David Keast, Canada Dr Kazuo Kishi, Japan Dr Diane Krasner, USA Dr Stephan Landis, Arab Emirates Prof. David Leaper, UK Dr Luis Fernando Lira, Mexico Dr Courtney Lyder, USA Dr Mario Marazzi, Italy Dr Sylvie Meaume, France Dr Joe McCulloch, USA Yvette Moulin, Canada Dr Manoj Pandey, India Nancy Parslow, Canada Prof. Hugo Partsch, Austria Prof. Hermelinda Pedrosa, Brazil Dr Elaine Pina, Portugal Dr Elia Ricci, Italy Dr Ricardo Roa, Chile Dr George Rodeheaver, USA Dr Jose Contreras Ruiz, Mexico Prof. Vijay Shukla, India Dr Mark Tang, Singapore Cath Vowden, UK Dr Peter Vowden, UK
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».