Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As we enter 2018 I reflect on how recent the start of the New Millennium seems. How we worried about computer crashes and utter devastation of the world at the dawn of the new millennium and yet as it becomes 2018, all of these stories of the late 1999's, ended up being incorrect or even “fake news.” A lot has certainly changed in our world in those 18 years. That's the world in general, not necessarily the World of wound healing. In reality, we should ask ourselves have we made as much progress as we should. As mentioned in previous editorials isn't it over 55 years since George Winters discovery that moist wound healing environments produced faster healing than allowing a wound to dry and form a scab. When compared with other clinical areas, we have to ask have we made similar progress to them and if not why? The interest in this subject continues to increase with the number of articles submitted to the IWJ now amounting to almost 600 papers and the standard of the work is improving rapidly. The numbers of meeting and products focused on wound healing continue to increase yet we still have not seen a seed change in the way which care is provided to patients with the creation of interdisciplinary teams and appropriate use of dressing, device, drugs, surgery and biological agents to treat patients with wounds. Is it a lack of interest in the clinicians or health service planners that is the major factor or is it the lack of acceptance that all of us have a responsibility to look critically at what and how we provide care to patients with wounds. The need for a considered and professional view on treating patients is urgent if we are to prevent the waste of resources and patients suffering needlessly. As I write this editorial, I am on my vacation in Thailand and am reminded what a beautiful country it is with such gentle and beautiful people. Ironically, the temperature here is the exact same temperature as my home in Toronto. The only difference being one is minus and the other positive. I will leave you the reader to guess which is which. How our worlds differ across our globe! They differ in many aspects, including our wound care practices, which is another challenge for us. One of my first editorials written from vacation was indeed from Thailand, where they had the first anniversary memorial for those lost in the Tsunami. That was some 14 years ago. As I get older, time seems to pass more quickly and that is perhaps something we need to bear in mind when our patients, many of them elderly, seem impatient in wanting professional wound care services provided to them. For some of us (myself included) we are approaching the age where our aging bodies remind us of the frailty of human life. I look in the mirror when shaving and do not recognise the aging man looking back. In my head I am still that crazy 20 something that went to Cap for University and partied till the early hours. This latest New Year celebration for me lasted as long as the fireworks. And that was a struggle. Perhaps as we age we become more sympathetic caregivers not because of what we see others experiencing but more what we experience ourselves. So to the young caregivers starting out in the wound care field—think on!! It will be you one day at the end of the care provided. Making the care for your patients better today, makes it better for you in the future. If each of us tries to make the world a better place today it will be a better world when we get there! (My New Year's resolution for 2018.) We may ask, especially if English is not your first language, what I mean by the words in this resolution. Simply put, changing the environment for those requiring your help today, better prepares the world for the help when you may need it yourself. Please accept the challenge and improve the standards of care you offer to patients with wounds.
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) | 0,004 | 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 ».