Gas Fireplace Contact Burns in Young Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contact burns from domestic appliances are common in young children. Recently, gas fireplaces have been recognized as a potential cause of contact burns in young children. We sought to quantify the frequency of gas fireplace contact burns in young children, to identify the etiology of contact, to describe the clinical presentation, and to describe clinical outcomes. Children with gas fireplace contact burn injuries presenting to The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto (1999-2002) were identified using three data sources: the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program Database, the Burn Unit Registry, and the Rehabilitation Services Database. Demographic, clinical, and outcomes data were collected on all children. During the 4-year study period, 27 children presented to the hospital because of a gas fireplace contact burn (approximately 9% of all contact burns). The median age of the children was 14 months (range, 8-36 months), with 16 boys (59%). Most children were burned in their own home. With regard to etiology, 10 children (37%) lost their balance near the fireplace, 2 (7%) walked too close to the glass front, and 8 (30%) touched the glass front out of curiosity. Almost half (44%) of the children burned the palms and digits of both hands. The median total burn surface area was 1% (range, 0.2-2.5%). In total, 30% of children were admitted to hospital, and 11% required skin grafts. All children had full wound closure after 4 to 43 days. Given the etiology of these burns (loss of balance or curiosity), passive prevention, such as barriers or changes in the composition of glass panels, may be the most effective approach to combat them.
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 | 0.000 | 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".