Cardiac monitoring of high-risk patients after an electrical injury: a prospective multicentre study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report our experience monitoring patients with previously identified theoretical risk factors of significant electrical injury. METHODS: Patients who presented to one of 21 emergency departments between October 2000 and November 2004 were eligible to be enrolled in a prospective observational cohort study if after an electric shock they had one of several risk factors (transthoracic current, tetany, loss of consciousness or voltage source > or =1000 V) and therefore needed cardiac monitoring. RESULTS: Of the 134 patients enrolled, most were monitored because of transthoracic current (n = 60), transthoracic current and tetany (n = 39), tetany (n = 10), or voltage > or =1000 V (n = 10). There were 15/134 (11%) patients with abnormal initial ECGs. No patient developed potentially lethal late arrhythmia during the 24 hours of cardiac monitoring. CONCLUSION: Although only patients deemed at risk of late arrhythmias were monitored, none developed potentially lethal late arrhythmias. Asymptomatic patients with transthoracic current and/or tetany and a normal initial ECG do not require cardiac monitoring after an electrical injury with voltage <1000 V and no loss of consciousness.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".