Use of Cyanide Antidotes in Burn Patients With Suspected Inhalation Injuries in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the use of cyanide antidotes and the determine the opinion on empiric administration of hydroxocobalamin in North American burn patients with suspected smoke inhalation injuries. An online cross-sectional survey was sent to directors of 90 major burn centers in North America, which were listed on the American Burn Association Web site. A multiple-choice format was used to determine the percentage of patients tested for cyanide poisoning on admission, the current administration of a cyanide antidote based solely on clinical suspicion of poisoning, and the antidote used. To ascertain views on immediate administration of hydroxocobalamin before confirmation of cyanide poisoning an option was included to expand the response in written format. Twenty-nine of 90 burn directors (32%) completed the survey. For the population of interest, the majority of burn centers (59%) do not test for cyanide poisoning on admission and do not administer an antidote based solely on clinical suspicion of cyanide poisoning (58%). The most commonly available antidote is hydroxocobalamin (50%), followed by the cyanide antidote kit (29%). The opinion regarding instant administration of hydroxocobalamin when inhalation injury is suspected is mixed: 31% support its empiric use, 17% do not, and the remaining 52% have varying degrees of confidence in its utility. In North America, most patients burnt in closed-space fires with inhalation injuries are neither tested for cyanide poisoning in a timely manner nor empirically treated with a cyanide antidote. Although studies have shown the safety and efficacy of empiric and immediate administration of hydroxocobalamin, most centers are not willing to do so.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".