Randomized controlled trial to determine the safety and efficacy of a multi-cell pulsating dynamic mattress system in the prevention of pressure ulcers in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of a multi-cell pulsating dynamic mattress system in comparison with conventional management for the prevention of pressure ulcers in the operative and postoperative period in patients having cardiovascular surgery. The study was a single center, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Patients who were having cardiovascular surgery for a duration of at least 4 hours were randomly assigned, prior to surgery, to dynamic mattress system or conventional management--both of which were initiated in the operating room and continued for up to 7 days postoperatively. Patients were assessed daily using a standardized scoring system. The results of the study showed that 198 patients in the dynamic pressure system (n = 98) or conventional management group (n = 100) were similar at baseline. A strong trend of decreased pressure ulcers existed in the dynamic pressure system group (n = 2) compared to the conventional management group (n = 7). The study concluded that a multi-cell pulsating dynamic mattress system is safe and mitigates risks for and decreases incidence of pressure ulcers in patients who undergo cardiovascular surgery.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".