MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027082357 · doi:10.1097/bcr.0b013e31823359d9

Practice Guidelines for Early Ambulation of Burn Survivors after Lower Extremity Grafts

2011· review· en· W2027082357 on OpenAlexaff
Bernadette Nedelec, M. Serghiou, Jonathan Niszczak, Margaret McMahon, Tanja Healey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRehabilitationPsychological interventionPhysical therapyClinical PracticeEvidence-based medicineSkin graftingSystematic reviewMEDLINEEvidence-based practiceBurn injuryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationIntensive care medicineAlternative medicineSurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate the available clinical evidence for early ambulation of burn survivors after lower extremity skin grafting procedures so that practice guidelines could be proposed. It provides evidence-based recommendations, specifically for the rehabilitation interventions required for early ambulation of burn survivors. These guidelines are designed to assist all healthcare providers who are responsible for initiating and supporting the ambulation and rehabilitation of burn survivors after lower extremity grafting. Summary recommendations were made after the literature, retrieved by systematic review, was critically appraised and the level of evidence determined according to Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria. A formal consensus exercise was performed to address some of the identified gaps in the literature which were believed to be critical building blocks of clinical practice.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.371
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations66
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207