The occurrence of pressure ulcers and psychophysical efficiency in patients with cognitive disorders provided with long-term institutional care in Poland.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Number of people requiring long-term institutional care is increasing in Poland. Older age, cognitive impairment, multidisease, falls, pressure ulcers, deficits in psychophysical efficiency often occur in patients benefiting from this type of service. The aim of the research was to evaluate the association between pressure ulcers and psychophysical efficiency in patients with cognitive disorders provided long-term institutional care. Study involved 160 persons with cognitive disorders (125 women and 35 men), age between 61–100 years. The study group included 80 patients of long-term care institution and 80 inhabitants of the social welfare home. The standardized Cognitive Assessment Scale (CAS), the Barthel scale, the Edmonton Functional Assessment Tool (EFAT) and the Observational Anxiety and Depression Scale were used as the research tools. The assessment was repeated three times: at the beginning, after three and six months. Respondents who experienced pressure ulcers (N = 28, 17.5%) were characterized by more severely impaired cognitive function (p < 0.001); dysfunction of functional status (p < 0.001), higher symptoms of tension, and anxiety (p = 0, 02) and a lower physical mobility (p < 0.001) than other patients without pressure ulcers. Patients with cognitive disorders provided with a long-term stationary care need systematic assessment of psychophysical activity, as a part of the of the pressure ulcer prevention program.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".