Refractory venous leg ulcers: observational evaluation of innovative new technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This observational case series reports the evaluation of a novel neuromuscular electrical stimulation device (geko™) that stimulates the common peroneal nerve at the fibular head as an adjunctive therapy in patients with non-healing venous leg ulcers. The aim was to evaluate and determine if the geko™ device was effective in this population and should be added to the medical supply formulary. Patients whose wounds had failed to heal within 24 weeks of standard therapy were identified in two community settings in Ontario. A total of 11 patients consented to the evaluation with a combined 107-year history of recalcitrant leg ulcers. Although the pre-geko™ healing rate was unknown, all ulcers were considered non-healing. With geko™, the average weekly percentage reduction in surface area for all patients was 4·5% and for the six adherent to geko™ and best practices 7·0%. By comparison, the average weekly percentage reduction for measurable wounds in the five non-adherent patients was 1·8%. Requirements for success appear to include an arterial status adequate for healing, effective and prompt management of wound infections and adherence to the treatment schedule. The geko™ device has been added to the medical supply formulary in one centre and is pending in the other.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".