The prevalence of skin tears and associated factors in hospitalised patients with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Oncology patients are vulnerable to skin breakdown. The primary purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of skin tears (STs) in hospitalised patients with cancer and to explore related sociodemographic and clinical factors. METHOD: This was an observational, epidemiological, cross-sectional study conducted in an oncology hospital in the city of São Paulo. All STs were classified using the STAR Classification adapted and validated for Brazil. RESULTS: Of the 341 patients evaluated, 22 had STs, equating to a prevalence of 6.5%. A higher number of STs were noted on the lower limbs (26.9%) than on other body areas. The main factors associated with STs were the use of anticoagulants, the presence of ecchymosis and the use of incontinence briefs. CONCLUSION: This study contributed to a better understanding of the epidemiology of STs in hospitalised patients with cancer, as well as its associated factors. Results may inform nursing professionals with regard to the need to develop prevention strategies and early interventions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".