The FLAMES Score Accurately Predicts Mortality Risk in Burn Patients
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The purposes of this study were to determine current mortality predictors in our thermally injured population, to develop and validate a new mortality predictive score, and to compare its predictive ability with those of the acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score, multiple organ dysfunction (MOD) score, and two burn-specific mortality predictive scores. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of acute thermally injured (flame or scald) patients admitted during a 12-year period (1991-2003) to an adult regional burn center was performed. Patients admitted between January 1991 and February 1995 (derivation population) were included in the development of a mortality risk predictive score along with the patient's APACHE II score, MOD score, Smith's score, and the Age-Risk score. The new mortality risk predictive score was validated in a separate group of thermally injured patients (validation population) admitted to the same burn center between March 1995 and December 2003. RESULTS: Of 1,439 acute thermally injured patients admitted between 1991 and 2003, 96 (7%) were excluded because they received comfort measures only. Of the remaining 1,343 patients, 378 (28%) were included in the mortality risk score derivation, and 965 (72%) in its validation. In the derivation group, there were 260 (69%) flame burns and 118 (31%) scald burns, and 35 (9%) patients died in hospital. Increased age, day 1 APACHE II score, percent partial-thickness burn, percent full-thickness burn, and sex were the strongest predictors of mortality. With these factors, we developed the FLAMES score (Fatality by Longevity, APACHE II score, Measured Extent of burn, and Sex), which had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.97 that was better (p < 0.001) than those of the APACHE II score (0.91), MOD score (0.89), Smith's score (0.93), and the Age-Risk score (0.94). The FLAMES score was tested in the validation population and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.93 was better (p < 0.001) than those of the APACHE II score (0.83), Smith's score (0.91), and the Age-Risk score (0.72). CONCLUSION: The ability of the FLAMES score in predicting hospital mortality risk was validated in a regional burn center population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle