Tipos de escalas para avaliação e classificação das lesões na pele: uma revisão integrativa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Buscar e analisar as evidências cientificas, nas literaturas nacionais e internacionais sobre os tipos de escalas de tratamento das lesões em pele. Métodos: Trata-se de uma revisão integrativa da literatura nas seguintes bases de dados: BVS, PubMed, WEB OF SCIENCE. Resultados: Na totalidade os artigos citaram 19 ferramentas, as mais citadas foram: Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH) (24,32%), Bates-Jensen Wound Assessment Toll (BWAT)/Pressure Sore Status Tool (PSST) (16,22%), Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) (10,81%), Modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) e DISGN-R (5,41%), suas aplicações foram na avalição da ferida e prática do instrumento (52,94%), a criação de novos instrumentos (17,65%) e validação (29,41%). Considerações Finais: Autores relataram positivamente a utilização dessas tecnologias, sendo um recurso importante para monitorar o progresso de cicatrização, possibilitando desde a confirmação diagnóstica ao manejo preventivo e terapêutico com base científica, auxiliando de forma segura e com qualidade o cuidado prestado aos pacientes. A inovação tecnológica de novas ferramentas é de grande importância para o aumento da eficiência do serviço de saúde.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.022 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".