Pressure injuries and biofilms: Microbiome, model systems and therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic wounds have emerged as significant clinical problems owing to their increasing incidence and greater recognition of associated morbidity and socio-economic burden. They are defined as wounds that do not progress normally through the stages of healing in a timely and/or orderly manner. Pressure injuries, in particular, represent a serious problem for patients who are elderly or have limited mobility, such as wheelchair users or those who spend most of the day in bed. These injuries often result from prolonged pressure exerted on the skin over the bone. Treatment of pressure injuries is complex and costly. Emerging evidence suggests that the pressure injury microbiome plays a vital role in chronic wound formation and delaying wound healing. Additionally, antibiotics often fail due to the formation of resistant biofilms and the emergence of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. In this review, we will summarise the current knowledge on: (a) biofilms and microbiomes in pressure injuries; (b) in vitro and in vivo model systems to study pressure injuries, and (c) current therapies and novel treatment approaches. Understanding the complex interactions between microbes and the host immune system in pressure injuries will provide valuable insights to improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".