MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296101589 · doi:10.5114/ada.2022.119419

Fluorescence – modern method of the diagnosisof chronic wounds on the example of venous leg ulcerb

2022· article· en· W4296101589 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paulina Mościcka, Justyna Cwajda‐Białasik, Arkadiusz Jawień, Maria T. Szewczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Dermatology and Allergology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFluorescenceCyanDebridement (dental)Fluorescence-lifetime imaging microscopyVenous leg ulcerChronic woundStaphylococcus aureusPseudomonas aeruginosaMicrobiologyBiomedical engineeringSurgeryBacteriaWound healingOpticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Fluorescence imaging has become a method for bacterial visualisation in chronic wounds for the last few years. MolecuLight i:X (MolecuLight, Inc, ON, Canada) is a handheld device, which enables quick diagnostics to determine both the type and location of pathogens present in the wound and on the skin. By means of fluorescent light illumination the tissues populated by pathogenic bacteria emit red or cyan fluorescent signatures, depending on the type of the pathogen: red fluorescence signal is emitted by Staphylococcus and Escherichia coli among others, while Pseudomonas aeruginosa produce cyan fluorescence. The fluorescence image also presents the spatial pattern of bacterial load, which creates bacterial mapping of the wound and may be used by a clinician for targeted sampling or debridement, among others. Aim: This study presents the method of microbiological fluorescent imaging and two case studies of patients with venous leg ulcers. Material and methods: In both cases, the sample for microbiological testing was obtained by means of a swab stick. Results: The results obtained from fluorescent imaging showed moderate-to-heavy bacterial load, which corresponded with the results from microbiology laboratory. Thanks to quick diagnostics with the use of MolecuLight i:X device, instant implementation of targeted topical actions such as wound hygiene, skin disinfection, appropriate dressing choice and curative treatment among others was possible. Conclusions: Our observations are consistent with the reports from other facilities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Dermatology and AllergologySame topicWound Healing and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207