MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341942182 · doi:10.1111/iwj.12602

The role of Inadine in wound care: a consensus document

2016· article· en· W2341942182 on OpenAlexaff
R. Gary Sibbald, James A. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Wound Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHome and Community Care Support ServicesPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWound carePodiatrySalineNursingIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iodine-based products are antibacterial. The small iodine molecular size is ideally suited to treat surface critical colonisation. Inadine is a 10% povidone iodine dressing with the equivalent of 1% available iodine that is easily extracted from the viscose backing by serum or exudate. The use of hydrophilic polyethylene glycol tulle dressing delivery vehicle allows the dressing to be easily removed by irrigation with potable water or saline. In this study, we developed a short online survey completed by 23 wound-care key opinion leaders from the nursing, medical and podiatry professions. A computerised modified Delphi technique was used to achieve 80% consensus on 11 statements related to the utility and everyday topical wound-care use of this product.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Wound JournalSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207