MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chronic Wound Pain

2008· review· en· W2333595651 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Skin & Wound Care · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiagnosis and Treatment of Venous Diseases
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nurses AssociationWomen's College HospitalRegistered Nurses' Association of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWound careContinuing educationChronic painPerspective (graphical)Reading (process)Intensive care medicinePain managementMEDLINEPhysical therapyMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief PURPOSE To present the wound care practitioner with a model for the assessment and treatment of wound-related pain. TARGET AUDIENCE This continuing education activity is intended for physicians and nurses with an interest in wound care and related disorders. OBJECTIVES After reading this article and taking this test, the reader should be able to: Discuss the pathophysiology of chronic pain and the wound pain model. Describe the patient's wound-related pain perspective. Identify aspects of local wound care and their relationship to pain. This continuing education activity discusses a wound pain model based on the wound bed preparation paradigm to help clinicians manage pain in practice. The key components include patient-centered concerns, causes of the wounds, associated complications, and local wound factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.330 · 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