MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987416497 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0116623

Point-of-Care Autofluorescence Imaging for Real-Time Sampling and Treatment Guidance of Bioburden in Chronic Wounds: First-in-Human Results

2015· article· en· W1987416497 on OpenAlexafffund
Ralph S. DaCosta, Iris Kulbatski, Liis Lindvere‐Teene, Danielle Starr, Kristina M. Blackmore, Jason I. Silver, Julie Opoku, Yichao Charlie Wu, Philip J. Medeiros, Wei Xu, Lizhen Xu, Brian C. Wilson, Cheryl F. Rosen, Ron Linden

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto Western HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Care OntarioOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsAutofluorescenceBioburdenMedicineDebridement (dental)Chronic woundDiabetic footWound careSurgeryPathologyWound healingDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, chronic wound infection is diagnosed by visual inspection under white light and microbiological sampling, which are subjective and suboptimal, respectively, thereby delaying diagnosis and treatment. To address this, we developed a novel handheld, fluorescence imaging device (PRODIGI) that enables non-contact, real-time, high-resolution visualization and differentiation of key pathogenic bacteria through their endogenous autofluorescence, as well as connective tissues in wounds. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a two-part Phase I, single center, non-randomized trial of chronic wound patients (male and female, ≥18 years; UHN REB #09-0015-A for part 1; UHN REB #12-5003 for part 2; clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01378728 for part 1 and NCT01651845 for part 2). Part 1 (28 patients; 54% diabetic foot ulcers, 46% non-diabetic wounds) established the feasibility of autofluorescence imaging to accurately guide wound sampling, validated against blinded, gold standard swab-based microbiology. Part 2 (12 patients; 83.3% diabetic foot ulcers, 16.7% non-diabetic wounds) established the feasibility of autofluorescence imaging to guide wound treatment and quantitatively assess treatment response. We showed that PRODIGI can be used to guide and improve microbiological sampling and debridement of wounds in situ, enabling diagnosis, treatment guidance and response assessment in patients with chronic wounds. PRODIGI is safe, easy to use and integrates into the clinical workflow. Clinically significant bacterial burden can be detected in seconds, quantitatively tracked over days-to-months and their biodistribution mapped within the wound bed, periphery, and other remote areas. CONCLUSIONS: PRODIGI represents a technological advancement in wound sampling and treatment guidance for clinical wound care at the point-of-care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01651845; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01378728.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations94
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207