Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare practitioners face diverse challenges presented by an ageing population, reducing funds, public demand for better health care, and a zero tolerance to avoidable healthcare-acquired injuries, such as pressure ulcers. To support the reduction in avoidable pressure ulcers European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines recommend patient repositioning, the provision of either an active or reactive pressure-redistributing support surface and, for some, complete and permanent off-loading of the tissue. Guys and St Thomas's NHS Foundation Trust recognised that an evidence-based prevention strategy was required to reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers in line with the Harm Free Care initiative. As part of the prevention strategy, eTRACE was implemented, an online clinical ordering system that uses the patients' clinical risk assessment in conjunction with the Trust's clinical protocols to recommend appropriate equipment selection. Additionally the system supports the organisational and national reporting/management requirements. This article will review the clinical and economic evidence to support the introduction of eTRACE and how this system has contributed to the Trust's agenda in reducing avoidable pressure ulcers.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".