Prospective clinical study of a new adhesive gelling foam dressing in pressure ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective, non comparative study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of an adhesive gelling foam dressing in pressure ulcer management. Twenty-three subjects with exuding pressure ulcers were recruited from seven centres in the USA and Canada. Study treatment included an adhesive gelling foam dressing, optional tape/roll bandaging and mandatory pressure-reducing/relieving devices. Subjects were followed until ulcer healing, for up to 28 days, or on patient withdrawal from the study, whichever came first. Dressings were changed at least once every 7 days. Mean percentage change in ulcer area from baseline to final measurement was -13%. Investigators reported healing or subjective improvement of ulcer condition in 61% of patients. Mean dressing wear time was 4.2 days. Subjects found the dressing was comfortable, soothing and cushioning in situ at 80%, 64% and 70% of dressing changes, respectively. Subjects reported pain severity of none or mild for every dressing change. Fourteen subjects experienced adverse events, including seven subjects with study-related maceration, erythema, wound enlargement, blister or infection. A regimen including an adhesive gelling foam dressing proved to be safe and effective for managing exudate, protecting the surrounding skin, minimising pain and supporting healing of pressure ulcers with exudate.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".