MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413982058 · doi:10.12968/jowc.2025.0370

Implementation of pressure monitoring and a risk algorithm to evaluate pre- and post-interventions in the community

2025· article· en· W4413982058 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Silvia Caggiari, Nicci Aylward-Wotton, Peter Worsley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wound Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionAlgorithmPressure injuryIntensive care medicineNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: individual's residing in the community spend a relatively small amount of time with healthcare practitioners and often rely on informal or formal carers.1 Those with mobility impairments can spend prolonged periods in bed or chair, posing them at risk of pressure ulcers (PUs).2 The quality improvement project, ‘Pressure Reduction through cOntinuous Monitoring In the community SEtting’ (PROMISE), implemented the use of continuous pressure monitoring (CPM) technology in the community to inform support surface selection, posture and pressure relieving movements.3 The present study aimed to evaluate continuous pressure monitoring data using a novel algorithm developed by the researchers, to assess for changes pre- and post-PROMISE quality improvement intervention.4<br/><br/>Method: patients were selected from recruited community residents, whose pressure data were captured pre- and post-PROMISE intervention. Pressure data were collected with a commercial pressure monitoring (ForesitePT, Xsensor, Canada). Data was analysed with an intelligent algorithm5 to determine duration and magnitude of peak pressure gradient and peak pressure index at the buttock area. A risk algorithm,4 based on the sigmoid relationship between pressure and time to stratify exposure to prolonged pressures, determined the ‘low’ (green), ‘moderate’ (yellow), ‘high’ (orange), and ‘very high’ (red) categories of pressures and time exposure. Sigmoid curves were developed for both pressure gradients and peak pressure index parameters.<br/><br/>Results: in all, 17 patients were included in the study. The percentage monitoring time in each exposure category (green, yellow, orange, red), pre- and post-PROMISE intervention was assessed, with respect to duration and magnitude of peak pressure gradient and peak pressure index. Some patients spent most of their time in the ‘at risk’ categories both pre- and post-intervention. By contrast, other patients revealed mobility and pressure signatures falling in the green category for &gt;80% of their time. There was a trend in reduced exposure categories from pre-to post-PROMISE intervention, as depicted by a shift in categories.<br/><br/>Conclusion: patients had a PU at the time of monitoring pre-PROMISE intervention and many exhibited trends which exposed their skin to prolonged pressures during static postures. The algorithm depicted high exposure to prolonged pressures, which showed trends of improvement post-PROMISE intervention. Further development is required to establish subject-specific sigmoids. This could be integrated in a novel sensing array for community monitoring use, and aid targeted intervention and clinical decision-making.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.365 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wound CareSame topicRespiratory Support and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207