Antimicrobials and Non-Healing Wounds:An Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global prevalence of non-healing wounds (also referred to as chronic wounds, hard-to-heal wounds or complex wounds) with mixed aetiologies has been estimated at 2.21 per 1000 population (1). The number of individuals developing non-healing wounds is increasing due to changing lifestyles (2) and an ageing population (3). These wounds therefore present a major social and<br/>financial burden, not only for the affected individuals and their families, but also for healthcare systems around the world.<br/>This document is aimed at two major audiences: healthcare providers of all types, who are tasked with providing hands-on care to patients with wounds, and researchers, who may derive ideas for future investigations from our suggestions and support when applying to funding agencies for research projects. The purpose of the document is to provide an update on existing knowledge on antimicrobials, including a general clinical approach to prescribing antimicrobials. It is not a guideline document and does not deal with particular topical products with antimicrobial agents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.335 | 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".