Terminal Ulcers, SCALE, Skin Failure, and Unavoidable Pressure Injuries: Results of the 2019 Terminology Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GENERAL PURPOSE: To present the results of the 2019 study of healthcare professionals' consensus and opinions regarding terminology for terminal ulcers, Skin Changes At Life's End, skin failure, and unavoidable pressure injuries to improve clinical care and to foster research into current criteria for unavoidable skin changes at the end of life. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, NPs, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After completing this continuing education activity, the participant should be better able to:1. Explain the survey methodology and identify the consensus statements.2. Synthesize the open-ended questions and respondent comments and their implications for clinical care and research. ABSTRACT: This article reports the results of a global wound care community survey on Kennedy terminal ulcers, Skin Changes At Life's End, Trombley-Brennan terminal tissue injuries, skin failure, and unavoidable pressure injury terminology. The survey consisted of 10 respondent-ranked statements to determine their level of agreement. There were 505 respondents documented. Each statement required 80% of respondents to agree (either "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree") for the statement to reach consensus. Nine of the 10 statements reached consensus. Comments from two additional open-ended questions were grouped by theme. Conclusions and suggested recommendations for next steps are discussed. This summary is designed to improve clinical care and foster research into current criteria for unavoidable skin changes at the end of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".