Healing at Home: Comparing Cohorts of Children With Medium-Sized Burns Treated as Outpatients With In-Hospital Applied Acticoat™ to Those Children Treated as Inpatients With Silver Sulfadiazine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using Acticoat (Smith & Nephew, London, UK), a dressing that requires changing only twice per week, we are able to discharge children with medium-sized burns for the majority of their acute care. In sizeable wounds, early burn care is often too painful to do at home and, therefore, sedative analgesia or anesthesia can be provided by the burn unity as necessary. In the interval between dressings, the patients remain at home. A cohort of 30 patients treated in this fashion between 2000 and 2002 were compared with 73 matched historical controls kept as inpatients and treated with silver sulfadiazine. Children treated with Acticoat spent, on average, 0.83 days admitted in hospital whereas those treated with silver sulfadiazine averaged 13.85 days (P < .001). There was a reduction in complications in patients treated with Acticoat and the need for skin grafting was not increased. We have been able to facilitate earlier discharges while continuing to provide safe and effective comprehensive burn care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".