COMPUTER SYSTEMS TO AID IN WOUND HEALING: SCOPE REVIEW
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate studies that present computational systems to aid healing and systems which refer to the use of low-level laser.Method: Scope review that aimed to answer the question: Which computer systems help in wound healing? A subquestion was: Which of the computer systems refer to the use of low-level laser? Results: From the search, applying the eligibility criteria, 49 articles made up the final sample. The systems served multiple purposes in support of wound healing; the majority presented the health professional as a user of the system; medicine was the most mentioned professional area despite nursing being involved in the management of care for people with wounds. Innovation in care using the computer system was frequently reported, demonstrating the importance of this type of tool for clinical practice. There was a high frequency of the mobile platform, showing that this is a current trend. Conclusion:Computer systems have been used as tools to support patients and especially professionals in wound healing. Regarding the systems aimed at the low intensity laser, there was a shortage of computer systems for this purpose, with a study.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it