Shared Decision-Making: The Norm, Not the Exception, in Prevention and Management of Wounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Key For Patient-centered Care And EngagementIn the current Canadian health-care landscape, patients increasingly seek to take an active role in decisions related to their health.1 Patientcentered care (PCC) emphasizes the importance of engaging patients and their caregivers in the decision making processes and taking time to understand their needs, priorities and preferences.2,3 Moreover, informed patient preferences are seen as the optimal objective, as this tends to lead to more realistic expectations and a better understanding of the positive and negative consequences of the plan.4 A call to action for PCC and shared decision making for wound care (prevention, assessment, treatment and management) highlights the importance of providing sufficient information to enable patients and caregivers to play an active part in their care planning.This engagement supports transparency in infor-
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.122 | 0.183 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".