Defying hard-to-heal wounds with an early antibiofilm intervention strategy: ‘wound hygiene’
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biofilm has been implicated as a barrier to wound healing and it is widely accepted that the majority of wounds not following a normal healing trajectory contain biofilm. Therefore, strategies that inform and engage clinicians to reduce biofilm and optimise the wound tissue environment to enable wound progression are of interest to wound care providers. In March 2019, an advisory board was convened where experts considered the barriers and opportunities to drive a broader adoption of a biofilm-based approach to wound care. Poor clarity and articulation of wound terminology were identified as likely barriers to clinical adoption of rigorous and proactive microbial decontamination that is supportive of wound healing advancement. A transition to an intuitive term such as 'wound hygiene' was proposed to communicate a comprehensive wound decontamination plan with an associated message of expected habitual routine. 'Wound hygiene', is a relatable concept that supports meticulous wound practice that addresses barriers to wound healing, such as biofilm, while aligning with antimicrobial stewardship programmes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it