MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409728626 · doi:10.63354/cjwoc.v1i1.13451

SCI-IEQCC Network and SCI-Ontario: Working together to develop and implement a skin check video resource for pressure injury prevention in spinal cord injury

2025· article· en· W4409728626 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tory Bowman, Sharol E. Cordner, Marty Doupe, Julie Watson, Nancy Xia, Andrea Chase, Jennifer Duley, Jordan Eggiman-Ketter, Charlie Giurleo, Julianne Hong, Thuvaraha Jeyakumaran, Anna Kras‐Dupuis, Dalton L. Wolfe, Anellina Ventre

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPressure Ulcer Prevention and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteParkwood InstituteOttawa HospitalHamilton Health SciencesSpinal Cord Injury Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryResource (disambiguation)MedicineComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationSpinal cordComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury/Disease (SCI/D) face a high risk of developing pressure injuries (PI), which can significantly impact their health, well-being and the economic burden on the health care system. To help mitigate these risks, the Spinal Cord Injury Implementation and Evaluation Quality Care Consortium (SCI-IEQCC) identified gaps during the implementation of indicators in the tissue integrity domain, specifically in the area of patient education regarding daily skin checks. A collaborative effort involving SCI-IEQCC, Spinal Cord Injury Ontario (SCIO), and individuals with lived experiences was undertaken to develop a skin check video resource. The process involved engaging a multidisciplinary team and other relevant stakeholders, creating storyboards, filming, and developing iterative feedback loops. Challenges included balancing clinician and user needs. Despite these challenges, an instructional video was successfully developed and integrated into SCI rehabilitation settings across Ontario. The video demonstrates independent skin check and assisted skin check techniques and has been well-received, with 4,400 views to date. Implementation strategies varied across sites, reflecting local contexts and needs. Key findings include the importance of clear communication, stakeholder engagement, and iterative refinement. Future efforts will focus on sustaining and disseminating the video, including translating it into French and further integrating it into staff education.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Wound Ostomy and ContinenceSame topicPressure Ulcer Prevention and ManagementFrench-language works237,207