MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405184104 · doi:10.56885/pwei2013

AI-Driven Predictive Models For Wound Deterioration: A Pilot Study

2024· article· en· W4405184104 on OpenAlexaff
Robert D. Fraser, Rishabh Gupta, Sheila Wang, Amy Cassata

Bibliographic record

VenueWound Care Canada · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineHealth carePopulationIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic wounds impact 1-2% of the U.S. population and lead to significant healthcare costs up to $96 billion annually. Despite advancements, subjective clinician assessments can cause inconsistencies and delayed interventions. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools offer standardized, objective evaluations to improve healing predictions and patient outcomes. This study aimed to assess feedback from clinicians and branch managers on the functionality of one particular AI Model (HealingIndexTM) in identifying deteriorating cases, despite clinicians initially reporting as improved. This pilot study demonstrates the potential of AI for early detection of deteriorating wounds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.789

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWound Care CanadaSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207