The Standardization of Radiation Skin Care in British Columbia: A Collaborative Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based practice guidelines for and standardize the care of radiation skin reactions. DATA SOURCES: Peer-reviewed scientific journals and texts and a survey of the guidelines in use at leading cancer treatment facilities in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. DATA SYNTHESIS: A formal reference document with recommended guidelines was developed. Consensus was obtained from all relevant disciplines, and the guidelines were implemented successfully into practice. CONCLUSIONS: The document introduced a major change in practice from the maintenance of a dry radiation treatment area to the promotion of skin cleanliness and hydration, as well as the adoption of the principles of moist wound healing. Annual review indicated that dissemination of (94%) and compliance with (78%) the guidelines were good. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: The process to develop, obtain consensus for, and implement evidence-based practice guidelines was an exemplary demonstration of teamwork and interdisciplinary collaboration.
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 | 0.076 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".