MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019840396 · doi:10.1097/won.0b013e3182a9c111

Prevalence of Skin Tears in a Long-term Care Facility

2013· article· en· W2019840396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsRegistered Nurses' Association of OntarioParacel LaboratoriesCARE CanadaKimberly-Clark (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTearsPopulationCross-sectional studyEmergency medicineSurgeryEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to collect baseline data of the prevalence of skin tears in a Canadian long-term care (LTC) facility. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The research setting was a 114-bed long-term care facility located in Eastern Ontario, Canada. The sample population comprised 113 residents from the facility. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, quantitative study design was used to gather baseline data on the prevalence of skin tears in the Canadian population living in LTC. METHODS: Residents were assessed for presence of skin tears, the number of skin tears, and location. Skin tears were categorized according to the validated Payne Martin Classification system. Data were collected using a predetermined data collection sheet developed for this study. A certified enterostomal therapy nurse with previous experience with the assessment of skin tears collected the data along with 1 nurse employed by the facility. Data were collected on a single day over a 6-hour period. RESULTS: Twenty-five of the 113 participating residents in the LTC facility had skin tears, yielding a prevalence of 22%. Category I accounted for 51% of skin tears, 16% were category II, and 33% were category III. Individuals who were found to have more than 1 skin tear had at least 1 category III skin tear. The most common anatomical locations were arms (48%), lower legs (40%), and hands (12%). Possible etiologic factors included blunt trauma such as banging into objects (44%), trauma associated with activities of daily living (20%), and falls (12%); 24% were categorized as idiopathic. CONCLUSION: Study findings highlight gaps in our knowledge of skin tears and the need for additional studies to more clearly define their epidemiology.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.342 · 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