Pediatric Electrical Burn Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective review of all patients admitted between February 2004 and December 2009, with a diagnosis of burns associated with electrocution, was conducted at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Data regarding type of electrocution and associated burns were collected. Of the 36 patients identified, 31 (86%) were shocked by electrical current, and 5 (14%) by lightning. Most burns associated with current were first degree (58%). The upper limbs, most frequently the wrist and arm (n = 23), were injured in 26 patients, and the lower limb in 2 patients, whereas 3 patients suffered multiple sites of injury. Twenty-eight patients were treated conservatively with dressings and minor surgical interventions such as debridement and primary repair. The remainder required excision and/or grafting. Fasciotomy and/or escharotomy were performed in 2 patients, and no one required amputation. Burns associated with electrical injuries remain a worldwide problem, responsible for considerable morbidity and mortality. They can usually be prevented through simple safety measures. An effective prevention program would help address this problem.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".