What is the Financial Cost of Burn Center Care of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the complexity of burn center care of TEN is well recognized, no studies have documented the financial costs associated with treating this disease in a burn center setting. The purpose of this study was to perform a detailed cost analysis of burn center care of TEN. Retrospective review of all TEN cases admitted to an adult regional burn center between 1/1/99 and 30/5/05. After categorizing sources of cost, one reviewer obtained data from the computerized burn center database, hospital records, and the individual departments and/or agencies responsible for assignment of monetary charges. All values are reported as a mean ± SD. Costs are in $USD. Between 1/1/99 and 30/5/05, 30 adults were treated for TEN. Following exclusions for incomplete records, (4), a study population of 26 cases remained [age 55 ± 16 yrs, %TBSA epidermal detachment 50 ± 30, with 21/26 (81%) requiring mechanical ventilation, and a burn center length of stay of 23 ± 21 days].The mortality rate in this group was 19%.The mean total cost was $94765 ± $70522 per patient. The mean daily cost was $4421 ± $1005 per patient. Mean total costs per patient for each category are shown in the table. IVIG was administered to 23/26 patients at a cost of $13826 ± $6208 per patient. Bloodbank costs in the 3 cases NOT treated with IVIG were only $140 ± $224. There was a significant correlation between %TBSA detachment and daily cost (Pearson r = 0.445, p = 0.02).
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 | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".