Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of subcutaneous injection of burn wounds and skin graft donor sites with an adrenaline-saline solution to reduce blood loss during burn surgery. This retrospective study reviewed the requirements of blood products in 30 randomly selected adult patients with more than 10% body area burned, who had at least one burn operation at a university regional burn center, between January 1991 and June 1997. Patients were matched by age and percent body area burned and stratified according to the surgical technique in two groups. In Group 1, 15 patients received the modified tumescent surgical technique: subcutaneous injection of adrenaline (1 part/million in warm saline solution) into the subcutaneous tissue of the donor sites for autologous skin graft and areas of burn eschar to be excised, combined with pneumatic tourniquets in extremities and saline-adrenaline soaked nonadherent pads. In Group 2, 15 patients received the traditional surgical technique: soaked gauze compresses with an adrenaline-thrombin solution (1 ml of 1:1,000 adrenaline, thrombin 10,000 units, and 1 L of normal saline). Outcome measures, transfusion of blood products, operating time and complications between the two patient groups were analyzed using the Wilcoxon 2-sample test. The two patient groups were not different by age (40.4 +/- 19.4 vs 38.9 +/- 17.9), percent total body area burned (27.6 +/- 15.4 vs 32.8 +/- 13.4), or percent full thickness burn (7.0 +/- 8.5 vs 11.5 +/- 8.5). The modified tumescent surgical technique significantly reduced mean total blood units transfused per patient (7.9 +/- 11.5 vs 15.7 +/- 12.9 units; P = .031), and the mean blood units transfused intraoperatively per patient (4.7 +/- 7.8 vs 8.9 +/- 8.0 units; P = .026). The modified tumescent surgical technique significantly reduced the intraoperative and total blood transfusion requirements in our thermally injured patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".