Improved Survival Following Thermal Injury in Adult Patients Treated at a Regional Burn Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since January 1999, changes in the management of acute burn patients at a regional adult burn center included no hydrotherapy, blood sparing surgical techniques, a restrictive blood transfusion strategy, newer protective modes of mechanical ventilation, aggressive surgical wound excision, temporary wound closure with allograft skin, employment of advanced critical care trained nurses, and an increased number of dedicated full-time fellowship-trained burn surgeons. The purpose of this study was to determine the composite effect of these modifications on burn patients' survival. A retrospective hospital chart review was conducted among adult burn patients admitted during a 10-year period (1996-2005). Patients were stratified in two time periods: PAST (1996-1998) and RECENT (1999-2005). RECENT patients were selected by matching age, gender, total body surface area burn, full thickness burn, and presence of inhalation injury with PAST patients. All values are mean +/- SD. Student's t-test and chi2 analysis were performed accordingly with a P < .05 considered significant. Of 1569 acute burn patients admitted between 1996 and 2005, 96 (6%) were excluded because they received comfort measures only. Of the remaining 1473 patients, 684 patients (PAST = 342, RECENT = 342) were selected by the matching criteria. More RECENT patients required mechanical ventilation (25% vs 17%, P = .011), with a trend toward more prolonged duration (9 vs 11.5 days, P = .175), more escharotomies (9.6% vs 5.6%, P = .036), more operations (1.1 vs 0.8, P = .003), and more temporary allograft skin (10% vs 2%, P < .001) than did PAST patients. RECENT patients had lower mortality than did PAST patients (2.3% vs 5.6%, P = .048), specifically patients aged 60 or older (5.4% vs 25.5%, P = .004), patients with TBSA lower than 20% (1% vs 3.9%, P = .031), patients on mechanical ventilation (9.3% vs 27.6%, P = .006), and patients who had surgery (2.6% vs 7.3%, P = .032). The significant decrease in burn patient's mortality was likely due to the composite effects of improvements in clinical care between the two time periods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".