MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965109840 · doi:10.12968/bjcn.2000.5.11.7127

A comparison of two hydrocolloid sheet dressings

2000· article· en· W1965109840 on OpenAlexaff
Helena Baxter

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Community Nursing · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical Sutures and Adhesives
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDermatologyPressure soresDentistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the clinical application of hydrocolloid dressings as a whole. Two thin hydrocolloid sheets - Tegasorb thin and Duoderm extra thin - were essayed in the clinical area, and compared for their ease of application and removal, conformability, wear time and patient comfort. Both dressings were found to be highly acceptable in clinical practice, with advantages and disadvantages to each type of dressing. There was a high level of patient acceptability and no adverse reactions were noted during this evaluation. Pain reduction was noted by patients with superficial pressure sores and trauma wounds that were treated with thin hydrocolloid sheets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Community NursingSame topicSurgical Sutures and AdhesivesFrench-language works237,207