Validating the Italian Version of the International Skin Tear Advisory Panel Classification System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate the International Skin Tear Advisory Panel (ISTAP) Classification System in Italian. METHODS: In collaboration with the ISTAP, the classification system was translated into Italian using a forward-back translation process. To validate the translated system, a convenience sample of 212 health professionals classified 30 photographs of skin tears originally used by ISTAP. The wound images were labeled type 1, 2, or 3 as described by the classification system. The resulting scores were compared with the ISTAP classification, and the reliability of agreement was calculated with Fleiss κ. RESULTS: Complete data were obtained from 209 healthcare professionals. When the image classifications were compared with the original ISTAP indications, 72.5% of all classifications were correct. Data indicated a moderate level of agreement (Fleiss κ = 0.466, range = 0.41-0.60). Data analysis showed similar agreement levels between nurses (n = 197, Fleiss κ = 0.466) and nonnurses (n = 12, Fleiss κ = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: The study validates the Italian version of the ISTAP skin tear classification system. Further studies are necessary to confirm the system's usability in Italian research and clinical settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".