MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593366582 · doi:10.12968/pnur.2017.28.2.73

Incontinence-associated dermatitis: new insights into an old problem

2017· article· en· W2593366582 on OpenAlexaff
David Voegeli

Bibliographic record

VenuePractice Nursing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNursing practiceSkin careDermatologyTerminologyNursingIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incontinence affects many. David Voegeli discusses how to differentiate skin damage associated with moisture from pressure ulcers, and the importance of structured skin care Incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD) is a common skin disorder seen in patients with incontinence. Typically IAD presents as inflammation of the skin surface characterised by redness, and in extreme cases, swelling and blister formation. If untreated this usually rapidly leads to excoriation and skin breakdown, which may subsequently become infected by the skin flora. While this is a common condition encountered in all areas of nursing practice, gaps remain in our understanding of the many contributing factors. A lack of standardised definitions of IAD, differences in terminology, and a bewildering increase in products available to prevent and manage IAD, makes it difficult for nurses to deliver evidence-based care. However, it is an area where nursing research has made a considerable contribution over the past few years. This article explores the current thinking on IAD and the implications for nursing practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.012
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.391 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePractice NursingSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207