Risk factors of incontinence-associated dermatitis in older adults: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Due to their ageing skin, older adults are more likely to develop incontinence-associated dermatitis (IAD). Although previous attempts to look at the risk factors for IAD in older adults were done, methodological barriers hindered an in-depth understanding. By investigating risk factors for IAD in the ageing population, the development of precise clinical interventions and guidance could be facilitated, which in turn would enhance patient care standards for incontinence management in this target group. To address this knowledge gap, this systematic review with meta-analysis aims to explore the major risk elements linked to IAD among older adults. Methods and analysis The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols are adhered to in this systematic review and meta-analysis. To achieve its objectives, a comprehensive search strategy PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Medline, Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP database), WanFang Data Knowledge Service Platform, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, along with other relevant sources published until 18 July 2023 in both English and Chinese languages will be performed. The screening of articles, data abstraction and risk of bias evaluation will be done by two impartial reviewers. RevMan V.5.3 software will be used for data synthesis. The quality of the included study will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment tool and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The I 2 test will identify the heterogeneity. Ethics and dissemination There is no need for ethical approval. Individual patient information or the rights of participants will not be compromised by this protocol. The findings will either be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023442585.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".