Quality-of-Life and Outcome Predictors following Massive Burn Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality of life is a major criterion when decisions regarding resuscitation, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of patients with massive burn injuries are being considered. There has been little research focusing on quality of life following burn injuries involving more than 50 percent total body surface area in the adult population. The authors' goals were to describe quality of life and identify specific clinical and functional indices that predict good quality of life following massive burn injuries. METHODS: Using a prospective study design, 47 patients who survived a massive burn between 1980 and 2001 were recruited from a single burn unit. Clinical data were collected from hospital records, function was assessed using the Abbreviated Burn-Specific Health Scale, and quality of life was assessed using the Short Form-36 survey. The Short Form-36 scores were compared with population norms. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify factors predicting Short Form-36 scores. RESULTS: Overall, the mean age was 28 +/- 1.8 years, 96 percent (45 of 47) were men, and the mean burn size was 64 +/- 2.1 percent total body surface area. Compared with Canadian population norms, burn patients had significantly lower Short Form-36 scores in the domains of role physical (69.1 versus 82.1, p = 0.0067) and general health perception (67.2 versus 77.0, p = 0.00014). At the time of injury, the amount of total full-thickness burn predicted follow-up Short Form-36 physical summary scores (R2 = 15 percent, p < 0.001). At the time of follow-up, addition of the patient's hand function significantly contributed to the prediction of Short Form-36 physical summary scores (R2 = 44 percent, p < 0.001). At the time of injury, the age of the patient predicted follow-up Short Form-36 mental summary scores (R2 = 25 percent, p < 0.001). At the time of follow-up, addition of the patient's perceived level of social support significantly contributed to the prediction of Short Form-36 mental summary scores (R2 = 44 percent, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Survivors of massive burn injury reported a good quality of life in most Short Form-36 domains. The authors identified the size of the total full-thickness injury and the age of the patient as factors available at the time of injury that predict quality of life. The addition of hand function and the patient's perceived level of social support at the time of follow-up improved prediction of quality of life. Accordingly, this information on quality of life after massive burn injury could aid in decision making at the time of resuscitation, reconstruction, and rehabilitation.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".