High and low pressure irrigation in contaminated wounds with exposed bone.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Irrigation and debridement are essential in the initial management of traumatic wounds. The relative efficicacy of low pressure irrigation compared with high pressure irrigation remains unclear. AIMS: The purpose of this study was to examine the time dependent efficacy of both high and low pressure lavage in removing adherent bacteria from traumatic wounds with exposed bone. METHODS: Using an in-vivo model, we created bilateral Staphylococcus aureus contaminated femoral wounds in 30 mice. The wounds were incubated for 1 to 10 hours and lavaged with either high (70 psi) or low pressure lavage (1-2 psi). The mean colony forming units of bacteria were compared between groups at each time point. RESULTS: High and low pressure lavage were effective in removing adherent bacteria from contaminated wounds up to 8 hours and 4 hours, respectively. High pressure lavage was more effective than low pressure at every time point. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of low pressure lavage in wounds with exposed bone is questionable when irrigation is delayed beyond 4 hours.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".