Patient perception of wound photography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to provide an assessment of photographic documentation of the wound from the patients' perspective and to evaluate whether this could improve patients' understanding of and involvement in their wound care. Our results revealed that most patients visiting the wound care clinic have difficult-to-see wounds (86%). Only 20% of patients monitor their wounds and instead rely on clinic or nurse visits to track the healing progress. There was a significant association between patients' ability to see their wound and their subsequent memory of the wound's appearance. This was especially true for patients who had recently begun visiting the wound care clinic. This relationship was not present in patients who had visited the clinic for 3 or more years. Patients reported that the inability to see their wounds resulted in feeling a loss of autonomy. The majority of patients reported that photographing their wounds would help them to track the wound progress (81%) and would afford them more involvement in their own care (58%). This study provides a current representation of wound photography from the patients' perspective and reveals that it can motivate patients to become more involved in the management of their wounds - particularly for patients with difficult-to-see wounds.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".