A Feasibility Study of Intermittent Electrical Stimulation to Prevent Deep Tissue Injury in the Intensive Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:The primary goal of this study was to investigate the feasibility of utilizing intermittent electrical stimulation (IES) in an intensive care environment as a potential method for preventing pressure ulcers. Furthermore, we wished to evaluate the practicality of the innovation and end-user acceptability. Approach:Twenty immobile subjects, age ranging from 19 to 86 years old with a Braden Scale score ranging from 9 to 16 (very high to moderate risk of developing pressure ulcers), were enrolled. Intermittent 35 Hz electrical stimulation was administered through surface electrodes to the gluteal muscles causing them to contract for 10 s every 10 min. Subjects utilized IES on a program that increased from 4 to 24 h per day over 8 days and lasted up to a maximum of 4 weeks. Results:Bedside nurses reported that IES was simple to use, took an average of 6 min to apply, and 2 min to remove. Furthermore, IES could be easily incorporated into routine patient care. No pressure ulcers occurred in any subject during the study. No untoward reactions or adverse events had occurred directly as a result of IES. Innovation:IES represents a potential method of preventing bedsores. This study represents a necessary pilot study, investigating safety and feasibility before proceeding with a larger randomized controlled trial to determine efficacy. Conclusion:Our results suggest that IES is both safe and feasible to implement in intensive care units.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".