Benchmarking Outcomes in the Critically Injured Burn Patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare outcomes with accepted benchmarks in burn care at 6 academic burn centers. BACKGROUND: Since the 1960s, US morbidity and mortality rates have declined tremendously for burn patients, likely related to improvements in surgical and critical care treatment. We describe the baseline patient characteristics and well-defined outcomes for major burn injuries. METHODS: We followed 300 adults and 241 children from 2003 to 2009 through hospitalization, using standard operating procedures developed at study onset. We created an extensive database on patient and injury characteristics, anatomic and physiological derangement, clinical treatment, and outcomes. These data were compared with existing benchmarks in burn care. RESULTS: Study patients were critically injured, as demonstrated by mean % total body surface area (TBSA) (41.2 ± 18.3 for adults and 57.8 ± 18.2 for children) and presence of inhalation injury in 38% of the adults and 54.8% of the children. Mortality in adults was 14.1% for those younger than 55 years and 38.5% for those aged 55 years and older. Mortality in patients younger than 17 years was 7.9%. Overall, the multiple organ failure rate was 27%. When controlling for age and % TBSA, presence of inhalation injury continues to be significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the current benchmark for major burn patients. Mortality rates, notwithstanding significant % TBSA and presence of inhalation injury, have significantly declined compared with previous benchmarks. Modern day surgical and medically intensive management has markedly improved to the point where we can expect patients younger than 55 years with severe burn injuries and inhalation injury to survive these devastating conditions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".