MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Ostomy Skin Tool: tracking peristomal skin changes

2010· article· en· W1979485539 on OpenAlexaff
Lina Martins, Elizabeth A. Ayello, Ineke Claessens, Anne Steen Hansen, Lis Hentze Poulsen, R. Gary Sibbald, Gregor B. E. Jemec

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStoma care and complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSkin careCategorical variableReliability (semiconductor)DermatologyNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ostomy Skin Tool is a standardized measuring instrument for assessing the extent and severity of peristomal skin change in terms of discolouration (D), erosion (E), and tissue overgrowth (T) (DET). The reliability and validity of this tool has been determined in a previous study. The purpose of this article is to highlight the study's most important findings, and to demonstrate the usefulness of the DET score by evaluating three examples of peristomal skin changes. Additionally, a simplified categorical severity scale (defining 'mild', 'moderate', and 'severe' conditions) is introduced that may improve clinical interpretation of the DET score. It is reasonable to conclude that the DET score may empower the ostomy care nurse with an evidence-based platform to make qualified decisions on evaluation and treatment of peristomal skin disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations109
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of NursingSame topicStoma care and complicationsFrench-language works237,207