Clinical utilization of near‐infrared spectroscopy devices for burn depth assessment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diagnosis of burn depth is based on a visual assessment and can be subjective. Near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopic devices were used preclinically with positive results. The purpose of this study was to test the devices in a clinical setting using easily identifiable burn wounds. Adult patients with acute superficial and full-thickness burns were enrolled. NIR point spectroscopy and imaging devices were used to collect hemodynamic data from the burn site and an adjacent unburned control site. Oxy-hemoglobin and deoxy-hemoglobin concentrations were extracted from spectroscopic data and reported as oxygen saturation and total hemoglobin. Sixteen patients (n=16) were included in the study with equal numbers in both burn wound groups. Point spectroscopy data showed an increase in oxygen saturation (p<0.0095) and total hemoglobin (<0.0001) in comparison with the respective control areas for superficial burn wounds. The opposite was true for full-thickness burns, which showed a decrease in oxygenation (p<0.0001) and total hemoglobin (p<0.0147) in comparison with control areas. NIR imaging technology provides an estimate of hemodynamic parameters and could easily distinguish superficial and full-thickness burn wounds. These results confirm that NIR devices can successfully distinguish superficial and full-thickness burn injuries.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it