Adults living with dementia and chronic wounds, wound types, care challenges, and impact across dementia stages: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to map the existing evidence on the epidemiology, care challenges, and impacts of various wound types among individuals living with dementia across different stages of the disease. INTRODUCTION: Dementia is a growing global health concern, projected to rise significantly as the population ages. This condition not only affects cognitive function but also increases the risk of chronic wounds in part due to impairments in mobility, self-care, and communication. Current wound care guidelines inadequately address the specific needs of individuals with dementia. This scoping review seeks to fill this gap by comprehensively exploring the intersection between dementia and wound care. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include studies involving adults aged 18 and older diagnosed with dementia or cognitive impairment who are experiencing alterations in skin integrity, such as pressure injuries, venous and arterial ulcers, and diabetic ulcers. Both qualitative and quantitative studies will be considered, as well as studies focusing on the challenges faced by caregivers in managing wounds in this population. Excluded are studies such as editorials and opinion articles. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy will be employed across multiple electronic databases, including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and PubMed, as well as grey literature sources like ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and OpenGrey. The search will include studies published in English and French without date restrictions. Data will be extracted using a pilot-tested tool and presented in graphical, diagrammatic, and tabular formats. A narrative summary will accompany these visuals, providing context and insights into the data in relation to the review's objectives.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".