MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A review of iodine-based compounds, with a focus on biofilms: results of an expert panel

2020· review· en· W3040965227 on OpenAlexaff
Randall D. Wolcott, Randall G Cook, Eric K. Johnson, Curtis E. Jones, John P. Kennedy, Richard Simman, Kevin Woo, Dot Weir, Gregory S. Schultz, Michel Hermans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Care · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiofilmLas vegasAntimicrobialWound careIntensive care medicineIodineDiabetic footDermatologyMicrobiologyPathologyBacteriaDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biofilms play a central role in the chronicity of non-healing lesions such as venous leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers. Therefore, biofilm management and treatment is now considered an essential part of wound care. Many antimicrobial treatments, whether topical or systemic, have been shown to have limited efficacy in the treatment of biofilm phenotypes. The antimicrobial properties of iodine compounds rely on multiple and diverse interactions to exert their effects on microorganisms. An expert panel, held in Las Vegas during the autumn Symposium on Advanced Wound Care meeting in 2018, discussed these properties, with the focus on iodine and iodophors and their effects on biofilm prevention and treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wound CareSame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207