INCIDÊNCIA DE ÚLCERA DE PRESSÃO EM PACIENTES HOSPITALIZADOS: REVISÃO DE LITERATURA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pressure ulcers (PU) are considered chronic wounds, from areas submitted to a constant ischemic process and, consequently, tissue death, which presence in institutionalized patients is a parameter for assistance evaluation. In the United States, around 2.1 million patients develop PU per year. in Europe, Canada and South Africa, from 3% to 11% of hospitalized patients present PU. In Brazil, studies on the PU occurrence in critical patients are few and only consider the assessment of the PU presence, while the patient is in the ICU. This study was designed to conduct a literature review on the incidence of pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients in the LILACS database, between 2000 and 2006. So, a research was developed in scientific articles papers until until october/2007, being used as descriptors: “pressure ulcer” and “incidence”. According to the scientific articles searched, we can observe that the general incidence ranged from 1.0% to 55.6%, being the major indexes identified in patients with marrow injury. As for the sedated and not sedated patients, an article researched showed statistically significant difference (p-value = 0.0323). In the case of patients assisted by an assistance protocol, there was a low incidence (3.7%), justifying the fundamental importance of systematic protocols implementation for evaluation the risk of PU development. According to the scientific articles searched, we can observe that the hospital general incidence ranged from 1.0% to 55.6%, being higher in ICU (7.2% to 41.1%). The major indexes were identified in patients with marrow injury, ranging from 42.5% to 55.6%, showing that the impaired mobility is a major risk factor for PU.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".