MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405388286 · doi:10.25270/wnds/24125

Efficiency of New Smart Instillation Technology With Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Managing Complex Chronic and Surgical Wounds: A Case Series

2024· article· en· W4405388286 on OpenAlexaff
Rosemary H. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueWOUNDS A Compendium of Clinical Research and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSurgical site infection prevention
Canadian institutionsLions Gate Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNegative-pressure wound therapySurgeryWound healingIntensive care medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Use of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation and dwell time (NPWTi-d) of a topical wound solution has been limited in some settings due to perceptions of setup complexity. Typically, some guesswork was needed to estimate an adequate volume of solution to instill without causing leaks. A novel smart technology is recently available in certain NPWTi-d systems that automatically estimates and instills a solution volume according to wound dimensions. OBJECTIVE: To report experience with this smart instillation NPWTi-d system technology in managing 4 complex wounds containing large areas of devitalized tissue and/or yellow fibrinous slough. MATERIALS AND METHODS: NPWTi-d was applied via a reticulated open cell foam dressing with through holes (ROCF-CC). The smart instill button was selected to automatically determine a volume of topical solution to instill, followed by a 10-minute dwell time and 2-hour cycle of -125 mm Hg negative pressure. RESULTS: The average NPWTi-d duration was 17.0 days, and no air or solution leaks occurred during therapy. Dressings were changed 3 times per week. All wounds were converted to clean granulating wounds during therapy. CONCLUSION: In this case series, smart technology simplified setup and facilitated regular cleansing and removal of devitalized tissue through the ROCF-CC dressing.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 venueWOUNDS A Compendium of Clinical Research and PracticeSame topicSurgical site infection preventionFrench-language works237,207