Low level laser therapy for healing acute and chronic wounds – the extendicare experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to assess the effectiveness of low level laser therapy for wound healing when combined with the Extendicare Wound Prevention and Management Program. Sixteen residents at a Canadian Extendicare nursing home had a total of 27 sites treated consisting of 23 open wounds and 4 'at risk' areas. Of the 23 open wounds, two wounds in between toes were not able to be 'traced' and deemed 'immeasurable' wounds, resulting in 21 open, measured wounds. The four 'at risk' (closed) areas were treated preventatively. Pressure, venous insufficiency and diabetic wounds were included. The majority (12/21) or 57.1%, of the wounds were chronic (>or=3 months duration) and 42.9% were acute (<3 months duration). The primary outcome measures included the PUSH Tool score, EZ Graph tracings and photographs. Secondary outcome measures were employed to better understand potential barriers to successful integration into clinical practice. Feedback on the effectiveness of low level laser therapy, the education program and determinations of hands-on relevance was sought from staff. At the end of the 9-week trial, the majority (61.9%) of the 21 wounds achieved significant improvement (>or=50% wound closure). Nine (42.8%) had 100% closure. Some improvement was seen in 14.3% and 23.8% of wounds demonstrated no change. Chronic and acute wounds had similar improvement. None of the wounds in this debilitated, frail population deteriorated during the study and no negative consequences of treatment were encountered. Without staff support, even if new technology has positive clinical outcomes, success would be limited. Staff rated low level laser, easy to learn and use, effective for the majority of their residents worth the additional time. Staff requested a continuation of low level laser even after study completion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".