Measuring Repositioning in Home Care for Pressure Injury Prevention and Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the widespread agreement on the need for the regular repositioning of at-risk individuals for pressure injury prevention and management, adherence to repositioning schedules remains poor in the clinical environment. The situation in the home environment is likely even worse. Our team has developed a non-contact system that can determine an individual's position in bed (left-side lying, supine, or right-side lying) using data from a set of inexpensive load cells placed under the bed. This system was able to detect whether healthy participants were left-side lying, supine, or right-side lying with 94.2% accuracy in the lab environment. The objective of the present work was to deploy and test our system in the home environment for use with individuals who were sleeping in their own beds. Our system was able to detect the position of our nine participants with an F1 score of 0.982. Future work will include improving generalizability by training our classifier on more participants as well as using this system to evaluate adherence to two-hour repositioning schedules for pressure injury prevention or management. We plan to deploy this technology as part of a prompting system to alert a caregiver when a patient requires repositioning.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".