A time motion study of manual versus artificial intelligence methods for wound assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This time-motion study explored the amount of time clinicians spent on wound assessments in a real-world environment using wound assessment digital application utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) vs. manual methods. The study also aimed at comparing the proportion of captured quality wound images on the first attempt by the assessment method. METHODS: Clinicians practicing at Valley Wound Center who agreed to join the study were asked to record the time needed to complete wound assessment activities for patients with active wounds referred for a routine evaluation on the follow-up days at the clinic. Assessment activities included: labelling wounds, capturing images, measuring wounds, calculating surface areas, and transferring data into the patient's record. RESULTS: A total of 91 patients with 115 wounds were assessed. The average time to capture and access wound image with the AI digital tool was significantly faster than a standard digital camera with an average of 62 seconds (P<0.001). The digital application was significantly faster by 77% at accurately measuring and calculating the wound surface area with an average of 45.05 seconds (P<0.001). Overall, the average time to complete a wound assessment using Swift was significantly faster by 79%. Using the AI application, the staff completed all steps in about half of the time (54%) normally spent on manual wound evaluation activities. Moreover, acquiring acceptable wound image was significantly more likely to be achieved the first time using the digital tool than the manual methods (92.2% vs. 75.7%, P<0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Using the digital assessment tool saved significant time for clinicians in assessing wounds. It also successfully captured quality wound images at the first attempt.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".