How Well Does The Parkland Formula Estimate Actual Fluid Resuscitation Volumes?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We had anecdotally observed that fluid resuscitation volumes often exceed those estimated by the Parkland Formula in adults with isolated cutaneous burns. The purpose of this study was to compare estimated and actual fluid resuscitation volumes using the Parkland Formula. We performed a retrospective study of fluid resuscitation in patients with burns > or = 15% TBSA. Patients with inhalation injury, high voltage electrical injury, delayed resuscitation, or associated trauma were excluded. We studied 31 patients (mean age 51 +/- 20 years, mean TBSA burn 27 +/- 10%). The 24 hour resuscitation volume of 13 354 +/- 7386 ml (6.7 +/- 2.8 ml/kg/%TBSA) was significantly greater than predicted (P = 0.001) and exceeded estimated volume in 84% of the patients. The mean urine output in the first 24 hrs was 1.2 +/- 0.6 ml/kg/hr. After the first 8 hours of resuscitation, the infusion rate decreased by 34% in 16 patients (DCR group), while in 15 patients the rate increased by 47% (INCR group). Both the DCR and INCR groups received significantly more fluid than predicted, (5.6 +/- 2.1 ml/kg/%TBSA and 7.7 +/- 3.1 ml/kg/%TBSA respectively). The INCR patients had significantly larger full thickness burns (14 +/- 11% vs 3 +/- 6%, P < 0.001). Our findings reveal that despite its effectiveness, the Parkland Formula underestimated the volume requirements in most adults with isolated cutaneous burns, and especially in those with large full thickness burns.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it