MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Twelve Common Mistakes in Pilonidal Sinus Care

2012· review· en· W2020829619 on OpenAlexaff
Connie Harris, Karen Laforet, R. Gary Sibbald, Richard L. Bishop

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Skin & Wound Care · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHalTechHome and Community Care Support ServicesSNC-Lavalin (Canada)Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineButtocksSinus (botany)Expert opinionHealth careAffect (linguistics)Wound careIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Healing of pilonidal sinus wounds (PSWs) by secondary intention requires an average of 2 to 6 months, but delayed healing may require 1 to 2 years or even longer. Characteristically, these midline wounds are in the natal cleft of the buttocks or sacrococcygeal area of the back. These PSWs have costly financial consequences to the healthcare system and negatively affect the quality of life of the individual with the wound. This article contains an evidence-based literature review supplemented by the clinical expert opinion of the authors. Twelve leading mistakes in assessment and treatment have been identified with appropriate solutions to optimize patient outcomes. A case study is included to illustrate the common clinical challenges with strategies to optimize healing.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.346 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations25
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Skin & Wound CareSame topicAnorectal Disease Treatments and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207