MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013020985 · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.08.212

A Systematic Review of Therapeutic Interventions for Pressure Ulcers After Spinal Cord Injury

2009· review· en· W2013020985 on OpenAlexafffund
Mary Ann Regan, Robert Teasell, Dalton L. Wolfe, David Keast, W. Ben Mortenson, Jo-Anne Aubut

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLawson Health Research InstituteSt Joseph's Health CareVancouver Coastal HealthParkwood Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCINAHLMedicineRandomized controlled trialPsycINFOSpinal cord injuryMEDLINEPsychological interventionInclusion and exclusion criteriaPhysical therapyRehabilitationSystematic reviewEvidence-based medicineIntervention (counseling)Alternative medicinePsychiatrySurgerySpinal cordPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.432 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations183
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207