MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1924169432 · doi:10.1055/s-2007-965465

Psychosoziale Aspekte thermischer Verletzungen im Kindes- und Jugendalter

2007· article· de· W1924169432 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jörn Andreas Lohmeyer, U. Eich, Frank Siemers, Thomas Lange, P. Mailänder

Bibliographic record

VenueHandchirurgie · Mikrochirurgie · Plastische Chirurgie · 2007
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Thermal injuries are a major hazard in the early childhood. The aim of our study was to determine psychological behavioural disorders following burn and scald injuries in the childhood and to estimate their dependence on the formation of scar tissue and the social background of the children. PATIENTS: 83 patients aged 0 to 18 years who had been treated for thermal injuries in our clinic between September 2002 and December 2005 were included in the follow-up study. The standardised questionnaires CBCL/4-18 and TACQOL-PF were used to evaluate psychological behavioural disorders and quality of life. The follow-up examinations also served to gain information about the social status of the patient's parents and the current physical complaints. Scars were assessed by the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). RESULTS: 50 out of 83 patients took part in our follow-up examinations. 21 children suffered from physical complaints following thermal injury. Dryness of the skin as well as heat and cold intolerance were named most frequently. Internalising (p < 0.04) and externalising (p < 0.03) behavioural problems correlated significantly with the severity of scar formation defined by the VSS. Quality of life and social status were inferior to the comparison group. CONCLUSION: The incidence of thermal injuries is highest in the first three years of childhood. The risk for burn and scald injuries is augmented by a poor social status. In children who suffered such injuries we observed a higher rate of internalising and externalising behavioural problems which correlated with the extent of scar formation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.026

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.287 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHandchirurgie · Mikrochirurgie · Plastische ChirurgieSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207