Late Outcomes in Adult Survivors of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis After Treatment in a Burn Center
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
Despite improved survival after burn center treatment for patients with toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), little is known about the overall long-term outcomes in these patients. In this work we sought to analyze late outcomes in survivors of TEN who were treated in our burn center. Subjects completed a questionnaire that included the RAND 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Subjects were examined, when possible, and completed the Functional Independence Measure. Scores on the SF-36 were compared with age- and sex-matched National normative data. All results are presented as the mean +/- SD. Of 35 adults admitted with TEN between January 1, 1995, and January 6, 2003, 10 have died in hospital, 4 have died since discharge, and 8 have been lost to follow-up, leaving a study population of 13 subjects (age 45 +/- 18 years with initial %TBSA involvement 65 +/- 29). Follow-up occurred at 38 +/- 27 months after discharge. The most common ophthalmic problems were chronic photosensitivity (54%) and dry eyes (31%). The Dermatology Life Quality Index (maximum-worst score = 30) was 9 +/- 10. SF-36 scores were significantly lower than in the age- and sex-matched normal population across all domains except mental health. The Functional Independence Measure score (maximum-best score = 126) was 123 +/- 4. Survivors of TEN demonstrate a high level of independent function in activities of daily living, but numerous complications of TEN significantly impair their overall quality of life, emphasizing the need for long-term follow-up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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