Survey Results from Canada and Some Latin America Countries: 2016 National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Changes in Terminology and Definitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Since the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (NPUAP) held its consensus conference in April 2016, various wound care specialists and professional organizations have been disseminating their response to the revised pressure injury staging definitions. The purpose of this survey was to get an objective perspective of the new NPUAP terminology and staging definitions changes from wound care colleagues outside the United States. PARTICIPANTS: In an attempt to obtain the opinions of wound care specialists outside the United States, a convenience sample from some countries in Latin America was invited to complete a survey during the Mexican Association for Integral Care and Wound Healing conference. In addition, students enrolled in the International Interprofessional Wound Care Course conducted in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, were also invited to participate in a revised NPUAP staging definition survey. RESULTS: Survey responses reveal strong support for the changes with consensus agreement greater than 80% on all survey items. CONCLUSIONS: These survey results can contribute to a universal agreement on terminology and definitions for pressure-related wounds, which may ultimately improve patient care.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".