MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Wound bed preparation and a brief history of TIME

2004· review· en· W2109970561 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory S. Schultz, David J. Barillo, D.W. Mozingo, Gloria Chin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Wound Journal · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSmith and Nephew
KeywordsMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Management of chronic wounds has progressed from merely assessing the status of a wound to understanding the underlying molecular and cellular abnormalities that prevent the wound from healing. The concept of wound bed preparation has simultaneously evolved to provide a systematic approach to removing these barriers to natural healing and enhancing the effects of advanced therapies. This brief review of wound bed preparation traces the development of these concepts and explains how to apply systematic wound management using the TIME acronym - tissue (non viable or deficient), infection/inflammation, moisture (imbalance) and edge (non advancing or undermined).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.006

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations271
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Wound JournalSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207