Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore nursing strategy of perianal skin for patients’ with fecal incontinence and to prevent and treat perianal skin inflammatory reaction.Methods 62 sever and critical patients with fecal incontinence were randomly divided into observation group and control group.In control group,traditional methods such as wiping with warm water and then applying stomahesive powder.While in observation group,a self-made fecal incontinence drainage system was applied.The comparison was made between different perianal skin inflammatory reactions and their nursing in two groups.Results There were 2 cases with skin reaction with degree Ⅰ in observation group while 19 cases in control group,14 with degree Ⅰ,4 with degree Ⅱ and 1 with degree Ⅲ.The incidence of perianal skin inflammatory reaction in observation group was obviously lower than that in control group(χ2= 11.47,P=0.007 6).The nursing time in observation group was less than that in control group(t=2.648,P0.05).Conclusion Selfmade fecal incontinence drainage system could effectively prevent perianal skin inflammatory reaction and reduce workload,which is worthy of clinical application for its convenience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".