9th World Congress on Developmental Origins of Health and Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research question: what are the most frequent anatomical locations of pressure ulcers in pediatrics and the more effective preventive measures used by nurses?Methods: An integrative review of literature was conducted using online scientific database and selecting studies that answered the research question.A research from the references of the selected studies was added.From the evaluation of the results, 5 studies were selected: 3 address the most common anatomical locations and 2 focus on effective preventive measures.Results: The most mentioned anatomical sites are occipital and sacrococcygeal, existing some discrepancy between authors.Despite the lack of studies about the efficacy of the materials and measures focusing mainly in adults, the most effective preventive measures selected are the nutritional appointments, alternance of decubitus, use of cushions to relieve the pressure, having suitable surfaces and applying gel plates.Conclusions: Studies reveal a disagreement about the most frequent sites of pressure ulcers which is justified by the anatomical differences among children and the changes in the pressure locations according to their growth.There is also a dearth of empirical evidence about the effectiveness of the preventive measures.Being vital the recognition of this issue in pediatrics, further investigation is suggested.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.070 | 0.020 |
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".