MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049357758 · doi:10.1136/ebn.12.3.78

Review: evidence on dressings for superficial burns is of poor qualityCommentary

2009· letter· en· W2049357758 on OpenAlexaff
Pam Hubley

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCINAHLRandomized controlled trialMEDLINESurgeryNursingPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the effectiveness of burn wound dressings for superficial and partial-thickness burns? Included studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of burn wound dressings for treatment of superficial and partial thickness burns. Outcome was wound healing. Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (all to May 2008), and reference lists were searched for RCTs. Authors and dressing manufacturers were contacted. 16 RCTs met selection criteria; study quality was assessed as poor to very poor. The table shows …

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207