MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045558909 · doi:10.12968/jowc.2013.22.2.90

Repeatability and clinical utility in stereophotogrammetric measurements of wounds

2013· article· en· W2045558909 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

VenueJournal of Wound Care · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWound careExpert opinionReliability (semiconductor)Intraclass correlationVeterans AffairsHealth careMedical physicsSurgeryIntensive care medicinePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To investigate the hypothesis that stereophotogrammetric wound size monitoring shows suitable inter-observer reliability and user acceptance for clinical practice use. Method: Veterans admitted for conservative management of severe pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in the study. Three-dimensional (3D) digital wound images were independently captured by two expert and two non-expert nurse-observers using a commercially available stereophotogrammetry system, weekly for 6 weeks. A double-blinded analyst generated 3D wound reconstructions, using software to determine geometry. Clinical opinion of wound progression was provided by an expert physician. Results: Thirteen wounds were assessed with more than 80% of all images being readable. Interclass correlation of 0.9867 (p < 0.0001) was observed. Compared with clinical opinion, 3D wound measurement was sensitive between improving and static wounds for wound perimeter, volume, depth and length. Conclusion: These preliminary findings suggest that 3D wound measurement minimises differences in wound measurement between expert and non-expert observers, suggesting it could be implemented with high reliability in health-care settings where several observers are involved in wound care management. Declaration of interest: This study was funded in part by a grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs VISN10 Research Initiative Program. All study personnel contributed to the paper. AJD's effort was provided in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MD degree from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. The authors declare they have no conflict of interests with regard to the information presented in this paper.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.318 · 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