MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040472616 · doi:10.12968/bjon.2000.9.7.6319

Developments in wound care for difficult to manage wounds

2000· review· en· W2040472616 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWound careMedicineWound healingIntensive care medicineWound closureChronic woundNursing careNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research and development in wound healing has ensured that issues relating to chronic wound management remain high in the nursing agenda. Since the advent of modern wound dressings, which retain a moist wound healing environment, work has continued to progress into more advanced, interactive products which aim to alter the wound bed in order to promote a suitable environment for cell migration and growth. Rapid wound healing is advocated and necessary to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with large chronic wounds and to reduce the financial and manpower implications of long-term wound care in the hospital or community setting. Vacuum-assisted closure, artificial skins, growth factors and larval therapy are discussed in order to give an overview of some of the emerging practices being adopted for difficult to manage wounds.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.338 · 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