Evaluating patient turn effectiveness using turn-assist technologies
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
Pressure ulcers are commonly developed in bedridden patients due to prolonged pressure on bony prominences. Turn-assist support surfaces have been developed to help reposition patients to redistribute interface pressure. The aim of this study was to determine if turn-assist technologies confer benefits to patients relative to manual turning, and to determine if different turn-assist functionalities influence patient outcomes differently. Interface pressure (contact area, average and peak pressure) and patient turn quality metrics (turn angle and repeatability) were recorded during manual and facilitated turns on two different turn-assist hospital beds at initial patient position, turn-assist (maximal mattress inflation) and final patient position. Manual turns produced the most repeatable turn angles, and closest to the recommended 30° compared to both turn-assist surfaces. Interface pressure differences between surfaces were most prominent in the pelvis region across all three time points. Overall, turn-assist surfaces produced interface pressure outcomes similar to manual turning, but manual turning produced more repeatable and optimal patient turn angles. Different turn-assist surfaces achieved different patient turn angles, so functionalities should be examined before device implementation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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