MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785682707 · doi:10.1177/2292550317693813

Low-Frequency Ultrasound Debridement in Chronic Wound Healing: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence

2017· review· en· W2785682707 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDebridement (dental)Wound careUltrasoundSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic wounds are painful and debilitating to patients, pose a clinical challenge to physicians, and impose financial burden on the health-care system. New treatment options are therefore highly sought after. Ultrasound debridement is a promising technology that functions to disperse bacterial biofilms and stimulate wound healing. In this review, we focus on low-frequency ultrasound (20-60 kHz) and summarize the findings of 25 recent studies examining ultrasound efficacy. Ultrasound debridement appears to be most effective when used 3 times a week and has the potential to decrease exudate and slough, decrease patient pain, disperse biofilms, and increase healing in wounds of various etiology. Although current studies are generally of smaller size, the results are promising and we recommend the testing of low-frequency ultrasound therapy in clinical practice on a larger scale.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.238
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.198 · 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