The ‘ring of fire’ phenomenon in chronic wounds: A new insight using fluorescence imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To describe the ‘ring of fire’ phenomenon observed during fluorescence imaging of chronic wounds. Methods: The Fluorescence Imaging Assessment and Guidance (FLAAG) trial evaluated 350 patients with a variety of chronic wounds. During the FLAAG trial, the investigators observed a phenomenon when wounds were imaged using the MolecuLight i:X imaging device: bacteria fluorescence aggregated at the margin of the wound. This was most pronounced in diabetic foot ulcers. The term ‘ring of fire’ was coined to describe this clinical observation. Results: Six representative patients taken from the FLAAG trial are presented to demonstrate the ‘ring of fire’ in a variety of wound types. This included three diabetic foot ulcers, two venous leg ulcers and a surgical site infection following lumbar back surgery. Conclusion: This is the first clinical report of this phenomenon. It highlights the importance of focusing on the wound edge when managing nonhealing wounds.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".