Review: silver-releasing dressings improve healing and quality of life in patients with non-healing chronic woundsCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do silver-releasing dressings improve physiological, psychological, and economic outcomes more than non-silver dressings or traditional wound management for non-healing chronic wounds? Included studies compared silver dressings with non-silver dressings or traditional wound management in patients who had wounds with delayed healing, critical colonisation, or infection. Studies of acute wounds or with quality scores ⩽60% were excluded. Outcomes were physiological (ie, wound area, odour, exudate, and pain), psychological (ie, quality of life), and economic (ie, dressing wear time) measures. Medline, CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane Library , EBSCO host, Proquest, British Nursing Index, and Online Computer Library Center (to Jun 2007); reference lists; periodicals; dissertation and conference abstracts; and wound management websites were searched for English or Chinese language randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Wound dressing manufacturers were contacted. 8 …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".