Knowledge and attitudes regarding care of leg ulcers. Survey of family physicians.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine family physicians' perceptions of and attitudes toward leg ulcer care and awareness of effective treatments for venous leg ulcers. DESIGN: Self-administered, cross-sectional faxed and mailed survey. SETTING: Ottawa-Carleton, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: All physicians in the region who were members of the College of Family Physicians of Canada. RESULTS: Response rate was 62%. During 1 month, 107 physicians reported having 226 patients with leg ulcers; only a few patients had had ultrasound assessment. Few physicians (16%) were confident about managing leg ulcers; 61% reported not knowing enough about wound-care products. More than 50% were unaware that compression is effective treatment for venous ulcers. Problems reported were lack of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for leg ulcer care (82%); absence of evidence-based protocols in home-care agencies (72%); lack of access to wound-care products (69%) and wound-care centres (66%); and poor communication among health care workers (60%). CONCLUSION: Better access to diagnostic assessments and use of compression therapy for venous leg ulcers would improve care.
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.
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 it