MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050635709 · doi:10.1097/won.0b013e318215f798

Moisture-Associated Skin Damage

2011· article· en· W2050635709 on OpenAlexaff
Mikel Gray, Joyce Black, Mona Mylene Baharestani, Donna Z. Bliss, Janice C. Colwell, Margaret Goldberg, Karen Lou Kennedy-Evans, Susan Logan, Catherine R. Ratliff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsCARE Canada
FundersColoplast
KeywordsPerspirationMedicineDermatologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moisture-associated skin damage (MASD) is caused by prolonged exposure to various sources of moisture, including urine or stool, perspiration, wound exudate, mucus, saliva, and their contents. MASD is characterized by inflammation of the skin, occurring with or without erosion or secondary cutaneous infection. Multiple conditions may result in MASD; 4 of the most common forms are incontinence-associated dermatitis, intertriginous dermatitis, periwound moisture-associated dermatitis, and peristomal moisture-associated dermatitis. Although evidence is lacking, clinical experience suggests that MASD requires more than moisture alone. Instead, skin damage is attributable to multiple factors, including chemical irritants within the moisture source, its pH, mechanical factors such as friction, and associated microorganisms. To prevent MASD, clinicians need to be vigilant both in maintaining optimal skin conditions and in diagnosing and treating minor cases of MASD prior to progression and skin breakdown.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations248
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wound Ostomy and Continence NursingSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207