Evaluating the Trezzo range of static foam surfaces: results of a comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents analysis from a 6-week prospective product evaluation of the Trezzo range of mattresses, compared to standard foam mattresses, in use on two clinical areas within Pennine Acute NHS Trust. Data were collected via distribution of three questionnaires. A patient experience questionnaire was completed by patients after using their mattress. This questionnaire elicited responses relating to patient comfort, temperature and sleep quality while using the mattress (and cushion if appropriate). The Trezzo mattress was found to be comparable to the standard NHS mattress in these domains. A staff clinical evaluation (patient) questionnaire was completed by nursing staff on behalf of patients in their care at patient admission and discharge. This questionnaire elicited responses relating to patient skin condition, and incidences of pressure ulceration. The Trezzo mattress was found to be comparable to the standard NHS mattress with respect to changes in patient skin condition during hospital stay. A second staff clinical evaluation (mattress) questionnaire was completed by nursing staff, in which the Trezzo mattress was compared against standard mattresses in the domains of aesthetics, ease of use, ergonomics and temperature control; patient moving and handling and mattress stability; and cleaning and sodium hypochlorite use. The Trezzo mattress scored substantively higher than the standard mattress on all of these domains; with differences being statistically significant in all cases.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".