MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905206215 · doi:10.12968/npre.2018.16.12.600

Skin tears: Prediction, prevention, assessment and management

2018· article· en· W2905206215 on OpenAlexaff
Karen E. Campbell, Sharon Baronoski, Mary Gloeckner, Samantha Holloway, Patricia Idensohn, Diane Langemo, Kimberly LeBlanc

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Prescribing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nurses AssociationWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTearsBest practiceArtificial tearsSkin careIntensive care medicineWound careDermatologySurgeryNursingManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skin tears are a significant problem for patients and the nurses who treat them. Estimates of their prevalence differs around the world, but there is strong evidence to suggest that they occur more frequently than pressure ulcers. In the past few years there has been an increased focus and research into skin tears, and the International Skin Tear Advisory Panel has developed internationally recognised best practice recommendations in this important field for the global wound care community. This article will review the most current research and best practice recommendations for the prediction, prevention, assessment and treatment of skin tears.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.371 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNurse PrescribingSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207