Bibliographic record
Abstract
TOPIC: Pain is a common occurrence in patients with chronic wounds. As a result of chronic unrelenting pain many aspects of activities of daily living and quality of life are affected. Despite efforts to raise awareness about pain, the majority of patients continue to suffer from painful wound symptoms. Many clinicians still feel ill at ease assessing pain and are often unsure what strategies to institute to promote comfort. Over the past decade, a number of clinical guidelines and consensus statements have been published drawing attention to the extent of wound-related pain and the ability to relieve pain in patients with chronic wounds (EWMA 2002: IPA 2004; WUWHS 2008). This new consensus document reflects a burgeoning international concern and understanding about wound-related pain. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE: To facilitate dissemination of the guidelines and knowledge transfer, the Woundpedia is established to provide succinct just-in-time information that is easy to access and Web-based. The purpose of presentation will describe the process through which the pain-related information is revised and updated based on feedback from international clinicians. METHOD: A panel of international wound experts were identified and assembled to generate clinical recommendations for practice. Draft statements were developed based on the scientific evidence in the literature and expert opinion. Drafted statements were sent to 60 international wound care clinicians for feedback using a Web-based methodology. They were asked to rate the statements with one of 4 anchors: strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree and strongly disagree based on scientific merit and expert opinion. If any of the items did not receive an 80% agreement rating, the statements were adjusted based on the participant's comments. CONCLUSION: Woundpedia provides just in time information that is based on evidence and feedback from international experts. We describe a sound and scientific process that combines experimental evidence with expert opinion and patient preference to establish the foundation of evidence-based (informed) medicine.
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 | 0.008 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.432 | 0.523 |
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".