The IWJ editor‐in‐chief discusses the World Union Congress 2008 with the chair of meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dr Gary Sibbald (GS), president-elect of the World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) and chair of the third meeting, discusses the innovative structure of the meeting with the International Wound Journal. Q: What is unique and innovative about the third congress of the WUWHS? GS: The organising principle of the Toronto 2008 meeting is the evaluation of the evidence base in wound care, which will be considered in the context of efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness to form a framework for best clinical practice. The synthesis of these three major pillars of evidence-informed practice will provide clinicians with a new and comprehensive way of reviewing their practice and ensuring that their care is patient focused. Q: How does the scientific programme support this innovative design? GS: The scientific programme is divided into streams that provide an in-depth review of a range of clinical problems. The keynote addresses will echo the importance of evidence and patient care. An expert panel will discuss the clinical significance of evidence-based medicine, Stephen Lewis will examine health care systems, advocacy and AIDS in Africa, and Marla Shapiro, MD, will focus on life/work balance and her own experiences. The closing plenary session will present highlights from each stream and provide participants with a congress overview. Toronto 2008 also takes a pioneering approach to evidence, choosing to evaluate evidence quality according to the type of information, from guidelines to preclinical data. This methodology allows a broader range of knowledge to be considered in developing a clinical strategy, and it is being used in the development of a comprehensive set of evidence-based summaries on all major topics in wound care. These summaries provide clinicians with rapid access to up-to-date practical information in a quick and easy web-based format. Q: To which health care professionals will this congress be of interest? GS: Toronto 2008 is being hosted by the University of Toronto, with the active participation of the following co-hosting groups: the Canadian Association of Wound Care, Canadian Association of Enterostomal Therapists, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and American Professional Wound Care Association. The scientific programme will be relevant to all clinicians irrespective of professional background, researchers and teachers working in the field of wound healing and tissue repair caring for patients with wounds of all aetiologies. Q: What is next for the WUWHS? GS: Toronto 2008 is a key step in building the WUWHS as an international association. After the congress, we will focus on disseminating the educational toolkits developed at the meeting and sharing expertise between associations. Register now to participate in this ground-breaking congress (www.wuwhs2008.com).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.104 | 0.079 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".