What Are the Fluid Requirements in Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acute fluid requirements in toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) have neither been quantified nor reported. The purpose of this study was to examine acute fluid administration in TEN patients. A consecutive series of criteria and biopsy-confirmed cases of TEN admitted to our burn centre were selected for retrospective analysis. Charts were reviewed for demographic and resuscitation variables for the first (D0), second (D1), and third (D2) 24-hour periods after burn center admission. Twenty-one TEN cases were available for study, with a mean epidermal detachment of 53 +/- 24% TBSA. Mortality was 29%, with all deaths occurring after the study period. Average crystalloid volumes decreased from D0 (2.2 +/- 1.5 ml/kg/%TBSA) through D1 (1.6 +/- 1.1 ml/kg/%TBSA) and D2 (1.4 +/- 1.0 ml/kg/%TBSA), whereas urine output increased from D0 (1.3 +/- 0.9 ml/kg/hr) through D1 (1.4 +/- 0.9 ml/kg/hr) and D2 (1.8 +/- 1.1 ml/kg/hr). Worst base deficit (BD) corrected significantly from D0 to D1 (P = .01) and from D1 to D2 (P = .002). There was no correlation between daily crystalloid volumes and %TBSA detachment. Nonsurvivors had significantly higher severity-of-illness score for TEN and 24-hour mean and worst BDs than survivors, but did not require significantly more crystalloid or display lower urine outputs. Initial provision of approximately 2 ml/kg/%TBSA epidermal detachment to patients with TEN resulted in more than adequate urine output and significant correction of the BD. We emphasize that these data do not represent a resuscitation formula but rather a guideline for initial fluid administration, which should then be titrated to the patient's response.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".