Long-term adjustment in burn victims: a matched-control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, there is little information about how severely burned patients compare to unburned healthy individuals in terms of psychological profile and quality of life. As part of a larger study on the sensory consequences of burns, we assessed psychological functioning and quality of life in burned patients and unburned healthy control subjects. We also examined whether burn patients experiencing pain and/or paresthetic sensations (i.e. symptomatic patients) present a profile that is different from those who are asymptomatic. METHODS: Forty-nine burned patients (% total body surface area = 34 59 % +/- 13.40; 82% males/18% females) were evaluated 63 59 +/- 28.1 months post-burn. They were matched with 49 unburned healthy volunteers on age, sex, and education level. All subjects were administered the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised (SCL-90-R) to assess psychological functioning and the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) to assess quality of life. RESULTS: Approximately 25% of the burn patients presented clinically-significant psychological disturbances compared to 12% in the control group. Burn patients enjoyed a quality of life comparable to that of the control subjects, although they perceived some deterioration in their general health. More symptomatic than asymptomatic patients suffered from clinically-relevant somatization and obsessive-compulsive disturbances. CONCLUSIONS: Severely burned patients adjust relatively well, although some develop clinically-significant psychological disturbances such as somatization and phobic anxiety. Burn patients experiencing abnormal sensations in their healed wounds (i.e. symptomatic patients) do not suffer from maladjustment to a greater extent than their asymptomatic counterparts, although more symptomatic patients experience somatization and obsessive-compulsive behaviours.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".