Patient and Injury Characteristics, Mortality Risk, and Length of Stay Related to Child Abuse by Burning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objective: To report demographic and injury characteristics of children admitted to burn centers with injuries from suspected child abuse and to assess mortality risk and length of stay compared with patients whose injuries were labeled accidental. Summary Background Data: Little is known about the association between burn injuries from suspected child abuse, mortality, and length of hospitalization. Methods: Records from 15,802 pediatric admissions (909 with suspected abuse) to 70 burn centers from the American Burn Association National Burn Repository were reviewed. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox regression models were used to assess the relationship between suspected abuse with mortality and length of intensive care and total hospital stays after controlling for age, sex, race, burn etiology (flame vs. scald or contact), % total body surface area burned, and inhalation injury. Results: Children with injuries from abuse were younger (2.4 years vs. 3.9 years, P < 0.001), had larger total body surface area burned (13.0% vs. 9.7%, P < 0.001) and were more likely to incur a scald injury (78.0% vs. 59.2%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, children with suspected abuse-related injuries were at greater risk of mortality (odds ratio = 4.67, CI = 2.60–8.39, P < 0.001) and required longer intensive care (hazard ratio for discharge [HR] = 0.93, CI = 0.87–1.00, P = 0.044) and total hospital stays (HR = 0.60, CI = 0.56–0.64, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Compared with children with accidental burn injuries who had similar demographic and injury characteristics, children admitted to burn centers with suspected abuse were at greater risk of mortality and required longer intensive care and total hospital stays. Data from 15,802 pediatric patients from the American Burn Association National Data Repository were analyzed. Children with suspected abuse-related injuries were 4 to 5 times more likely to die and required significantly longer intensive care and total hospital stays compared with children with accidental injuries after controlling for other known risk factors.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".