A Retrospective Study of Patients with Self-Inflicted Burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-inflicted burns represent between 2 to 10% of admissions to burn units1–3 but remain uncommon in western cultures4 and are not well described. We present here a retrospective study of 18 patients with self-inflicted burns. The aim of this study is to characterize this population in a North American setting and compare it to our general burn population. All patients with self-inflicted burns between July 2002 and September 2005 were included. Endpoints were to determine if these patients had higher TBSA, LOS and mortality than the other burn patients. Other parameters were collected: age, sex, drug addiction, method used, psychiatric illness, previous attempts and employment status. Information was retrieved from our computerized research database and compared to the non self-inflicted burn patients. Out of 401 burned patients admitted between the studied period, 18 (4,5%) had self-inflicted burns (table). Patients with self inflicted burns had a high incidence of drug addiction (39%), psychiatric illness (67%), previous suicidal attempts (44%), or unemployment (67%).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".