Results of the 2022 Wound Survey on Skin Failure/End-of-Life Terminology and Pressure Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the major findings of a survey first conducted in 2019 and repeated in 2022 and review new concepts (angiosomes and pressure injuries) and challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This survey captures participants' ranking of agreement or disagreement with 10 statements on Kennedy terminal ulcers, Skin Changes At Life's End, Trombley-Brennan terminal tissue injuries, skin failure, and unavoidable/avoidable pressure injuries. The survey was hosted online by SurveyMonkey from February 2022 until June 2022. All interested persons were able to participate in this voluntary, anonymous survey. RESULTS: Overall, 145 respondents participated. The same nine statements achieved at least 80% agreement (somewhat agree or strongly agree) as in the previous survey. The one statement that did not reach consensus also failed to reach consensus in the 2019 survey: "The concept of skin failure does not include pressure injuries." CONCLUSIONS: It is the authors' hope that this will stimulate more research into terminology and etiology of skin changes in persons at end of life and encourage more research regarding terminology and criteria to define which skin lesions are unavoidable or avoidable.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".