MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906660394

Using Multi-Layer Foam Dressing to Prevent Pressure Injury in a Long-Term Care Setting.

2018· article· en· W2906660394 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Woo

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePressure injuryIncidence (geometry)Best practiceIntensive care medicineMedical emergency
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintaining skin integrity is espoused by several international authorities as a benchmark for patient safety and quality of care. National guidelines advocate the use of prophylactic multi-layer foam dressings over bony prominences for the prevention of pressure ulcers or injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of best practice guidelines including the use of multi-layer foam dressings for the prevention of pressure injuries. The analysis involved data from a total number of 62 unique patients. The incidence rate prior to the implementation of best practices was 5.2%. The incidence after the implementation was 0%.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207