Granulation Tissue of Chronic Pressure Ulcers as a Predictive Indicator of Wound Closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: : To describe the temporal relationship between the quantity of granulation tissue in a chronic pressure ulcer (PrU) and its clinical outcome. DESIGN: : Study participants were seen on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42. On each visit, the wounds were digitally photographed with a 3-cm calibration target. Images were analyzed using VeV MD (version 1.1.14; VERG Inc, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) and Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended (version 10.0.1; Adobe Systems Inc, San Jose, California). Granulation tissue was selected from calibrated digital images by 1 of 2 methods: manual selection and automated selection. Granulation tissue area was expressed as a percentage of total wound area. SETTING: : Academic research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: : Thirty-one chronic PrUs were observed in 27 subjects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: : Quantitative measure of granulation tissue area. MAIN RESULTS: : There was no relationship between the amount of granulation tissue expressed as a percentage of the total PrU area and wound outcome. CONCLUSIONS: : This study is the first to both quantitatively measure the amount of granulation tissue in a chronic PrU and attempt to correlate it to wound outcome. Although counterintuitive, the amount of granulation tissue was not predictive of outcome, and no temporal trends could be described.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".