A 12-Year Comparison of Common Therapeutic Interventions in the Burn Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although most occupational and physical therapists in an acute burn care setting use similar therapy practices, the time frames at which these therapeutic interventions are carried out vary according to the burn centers' practices. The purpose of this survey was to investigate current trends in burn rehabilitation and compare the results with a similar survey performed in 1994. The survey was designed in a similar fashion to the 1994 survey to ascertain common trends in burn rehabilitation. The survey was sent to 100 randomly selected burn care facilities throughout the United States and Canada. Content included rehabilitation interventions, including evaluation, positioning, splinting, active range of motion, passive range of motion, ambulation, as well as the cross-training of therapists. Significant increases in the percentages of burn centers initiating common therapy practices were found. Positioning (41% increase), active range of motion (48% increase), passive range of motion (52% increase), and ambulation (29% increase) were all found to have increases in the number of burn centers employing these practices in the same time frame. Overall comparison from 1994 to 2006 shows that common therapy techniques are being initiated earlier in the patient's acute burn stay. These results are consistent with recent medical trends of earlier acute discharges and more focus on outpatient rehabilitation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".