Assessing peristomal skin changes in ostomy patients: validation of the Ostomy Skin Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peristomal skin problems are common and are treated by a variety of health professionals. Clear and consistent communication among these professionals is therefore particularly important. The Ostomy Skin Tool (OST) is a new assessment instrument for the extent and severity of peristomal skin conditions. Formal tests of reliability and validity are necessary for its use in clinical practice, research, and education. OBJECTIVES: To estimate inter- and intra nurse assessment variability of the OST and validity by comparison to a 'gold standard' (GS) defined by an expert panel. METHODS: Thirty photographs of peristomal skin were presented twice to 20 ostomy care nurses--10 from Denmark (DK) and 10 from Spain (ES)--to determine intra- and inter nurse assessment variability. The same photographs were presented to an international group of experts (dermatologist and ostomy care nurses), to establish a GS for comparison and validation of the results. RESULTS: A high intra-nurse assessment agreement, κ=0·84, was found with no differences in the intra-nurse assessments from the two groups of nurses (DK and ES). The inter-nurse assessment agreement was 'moderate to good', κ=0·54, with the agreement between the experts higher, κ=0·70. A high correlation between the scores from the nurses and the GS were seen in the lower part of the two scales [Discoloration, Erosion, Tissue overgrowth (DET) score<7)]. CONCLUSION: The study supported the validity of the OST. It is suggested that a categorical scale can be used to illustrate the severity of the DET scores.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".