A Multicenter Study of Preventable Contact Burns From Glass Fronted Gas Fireplaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glass fronted gas fireplaces (GFGFs) have exterior surfaces that can reach extremely high temperatures. Burn injuries from contact with the glass front can be severe with long-term sequelae. The Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that these injuries are uncommon, whereas single-center studies indicate a much higher frequency. The purpose of this multi-institutional study was to determine the magnitude and severity of GFGF injuries in North America. Seventeen burn centers elected to participate in this retrospective chart review. Chart review identified 402 children ≤10 years of age who sustained contact burns from contact with GFGF, who were seen or admitted to the study hospitals from January 2006 to December 2010. Demographic, burn, treatment, and financial data were collected. The mean age of the study group was 16.8 ± 13.3 months. The majority suffered burns to their hands (396, 98.5%), with burns to the face being the second, much less common site (14, 3.5%). Two hundred and sixty-nine required rehabilitation therapy (66.9%). The number of GFGF injuries reported was 20 times greater than the approximately 30 injuries estimated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission's 10-year review. For the affected children, these injuries are painful, often costly and occasionally can lead to long-term sequelae. Given that less than a quarter of burn centers contributed data, the injury numbers reported herein support a need for broader safety guidelines for gas fireplaces in order to have a significant impact on future 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".