Tourniquet and Subcutaneous Epinephrine Reduce Blood Loss During Burn Excision and Immediate Autografting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blood loss has been reduced using both tourniquets and epinephrine-injected subeschar during burn wound excision. This study quantified and compared blood loss in extremities distal to an inflated tourniquet with that after subeschar infusion of 1:1,000,000 epinephrine in saline into the trunk or proximal extremities. Tangential excision of eschar to viable dermis or fat was followed by immediate application of meshed autograft. Blood loss was calculated by determining the difference of preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin values and the volume of whole blood administered between these. With tourniquets for limbs, 2.07 +/- 0.34% of circulating blood volume per 1% body surface excised was lost; whereas after epinephrine injection 3.42 +/- 0.39% of blood volume per 1% body surface excised was lost (P < 0.05). Both methods effectively reduced blood loss when compared with excision followed by delayed autograft application. Where there was a choice the tourniquet was more effective.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".