Pain and the Thermally Injured Patient—A Review of Current Therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermally injured patients experience tremendous pain from the moment of injury to months or years after their discharge from the hospital. Pain is therefore a critical component of proper management of burns. Although the importance of pain is well recognized, it is often undertreated. Acute uncontrolled pain has been shown to increase the incidence of mental health disorders and increase the incidence of suicide after discharge. Long-term poor pain control leads to an increase in the incidence of persistent pain. Most burn centers have used opioids as the mainstay analgesic, but recently, the significant side effects of opioids have led to the implementation of new and combined therapeutics. Pharmacological agents such as gabapentin, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, and ketamine have all been suggested as adjuncts to opioids in the treatment of burn pain. Nonpharmacological therapies such as hypnosis, virtual reality devices, and behavioral therapy are also essential adjuncts to current medications. This review aims at identifying the currently available pharmacological and nonpharmacological options for optimal pain management in the adult burn population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".