MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416554492

Advancing chronic wound care with near-infrared spectroscopy imaging: clinical applications, measurement parameters, and insights into healing dynamics.

2025· article· en· W4416554492 on OpenAlexaff
Alisha Oropallo, Alex G. Ortega‐Loayza, Holly Korzendorfer, Francis V. James, Peggy Dotson, Anna Khimchenko, Vickie R. Driver, Sharon Eve Sonenblum

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWound Healing and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHome and Community Care Support Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWound careChronic woundWound healingStandard of careClinical PracticeComplement (music)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic wound management is a global health care challenge affecting patient morbidity and quality of life while presenting a substantial economic burden. A critical limitation in effective wound care is the inability to accurately assess microvascular tissue health in real time. This review of near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) imaging and its use in wound care emphasizes relevant clinical end points and explores key measurement parameters assessed via NIRS imaging. OBJECTIVE: To identify, describe, and illustrate NIRS imaging modalities and measurement parameters, and their clinical applications. RESULTS: Clinical studies demonstrated that NIRS imaging can effectively detect poor wound healing early, facilitating timely interventions. Changes in parameters such as oxygenated hemoglobin, deoxygenated hemoglobin, and tissue oxygen saturation have shown strong correlations with wound healing progress, enabling clinicians to make more informed decisions. CONCLUSION: NIRS imaging advances wound management by providing real-time, noninvasive, and objective data on tissue oxygenation and perfusion. NIRS imaging may objectively complement the standard percentage area reduction assessments during the wound treatment process.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreReview

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 venuePubMed→Same topicWound Healing and Treatments→French-language works237,207→