MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018161766 · doi:10.1097/bcr.0b013e31825f3186

Albumin Supplementation for Hypoalbuminemia Following Burns

2012· article· en· W2018161766 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Melinyshyn, Jeannie Callum, Marc G. Jeschke, Robert Cartotto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoalbuminemiaMedicineAlbuminResuscitationTotal body surface areaSerum albuminBurn centerInternal medicineSurgeryAnesthesiaGastroenterologyPoison controlEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following fluid resuscitation, patients with major burns frequently develop prolonged hypoalbuminemia. It is not known whether this should be corrected by albumin supplementation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there are any benefits associated with albumin supplementation to correct hypoalbuminemia in burned adults. We conducted a retrospective comparison of patients with burns ≥ 20% TBSA admitted to an adult regional American Burn Association-verified burn center, from May 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010, where we did not routinely supplement albumin (control group), with patients admitted from October 1, 2010, to May 30, 2011, where we had instituted a protocol in which 5% human albumin was provided to maintain serum albumin levels >20 g/L (albumin group). Comparisons were made from postburn (PB) day 2 to day 30 inclusive. There were no significant differences between control (n = 26) and albumin (n = 17) in age (48 ± 15 vs 45 ± 21 years; P = .56), burn size (33 ± 13 vs 34 ± 13 %TBSA; P = .831), or full thickness burn size (19 ± 19 vs 23 ± 19 %TBSA; P = .581). Inhalation injury was significantly more frequent in the albumin group than in controls (71% vs 31%; P = .01). The groups did not differ significantly in need for admission escharotomy, admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, number of surgical procedures/first 30 days, or 24 and 48 hours fluid resuscitation volume requirements. The overall mean daily serum albumin level from PB day 2 to 30 in the albumin group (26.9 ± 3.0 g/L) was significantly greater than in controls (21.9 ± 4.4 g/L; P < .001). There were no significant differences between the groups in daily SOFA score/first 30 days, peak SOFA score, ΔSOFA, hospital length of stay, time to wound healing, duration of mechanical ventilation, or 30-day and in-hospital mortality. The cost of routinely supplementing 5% albumin between PB day 2 to 30 in the albumin group was more than four times that for the controls where we did not routinely provide albumin (Can $65.50 vs Can $16.57 per patient per day). We conclude that routine supplementation of 5% human albumin to maintain a serum albumin level ≥ 20 g/L in burn patients is expensive and provides no benefit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207