A Survey of Risk Factors for Burns in the Elderly and Prevention Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elderly burn patients suffer from greater morbidity and mortality than younger patients with similar burn extents. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for burn injuries in the elderly to develop an effective preventive program. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 20 elderly (> or =65 years of age) burn survivors on the circumstances surrounding their burn injury and on burn prevention. A control group of 20 nonburned elderly completed a similar survey only on burn prevention. The majority of burned subjects believed that their injury was preventable (85%). The home was the commonest location for burn injury (70%), and scalds (50%) and flame burns (25%) were the most common etiologies. Most subjects felt that a burn prevention program would be useful (95%) and television, news, and posters were the preferred sources of prevention information. Compared with the burn group, the control group had more risk factors for burn injury. However, the control group also took more active preventive measures. Burn prevention campaigns for elderly should focus on reducing flame and scald burns that occur in the home, preferably using television, news, and poster media.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".