Trends in Decubitus Ulcer Disease Burden in European Union 15+ Countries, from 1990 to 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decubitus ulcers (DU) are a common pathology with significant morbidity and financial implications for health services globally. This study aimed to compare the burden of DU across European Union (EU) 15+ countries between 1990 and 2017. METHODS: Age-standardized incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) rates per 100,000 were extracted from the Global Burden of Disease Study online data repository for EU15+ countries (a group of 19 countries with comparable health expenditure, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia). A joinpoint regression analysis was used to describe trends. RESULTS: The incidence of DU increased between 1990 and 2017 in 15 of 19 EU15+ countries for both men and women. Mortality from DU decreased over the time period analyzed in the majority of EU15+ countries: only in Denmark, Finland, and Germany were increasing mortality rates observed. Decreasing DALY rates were generally observed, with the largest decreases observed in Ireland for men and women. Denmark and Germany were the only countries to demonstrate unfavorable trends in mortality, incidence, and DALYs between 1990 and 2017 for men and women. The United States, the Netherlands, and France were the only EU15+ countries in which improving disease burden was identified between 1990 and 2017 for all parameters assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of DU is increasing in EU15+ countries, whereas mortality rates and DALYs are improving. The trends in disease burden in Denmark and Germany have followed contrasting and unfavorable trends. Investigation into these trends is called for.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".