MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111893100 · doi:10.1128/cmr.19.2.403-434.2006

Burn Wound Infections

2006· review· en· W2111893100 on OpenAlexaff
Deirdre L. Church, Sameer Elsayed, Owen Reid, Brent W. Winston, Robert S. Lindsay

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Microbiology Reviews · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEscharSepsisThermal burnBurn injuryPneumoniaIntensive care medicineSurgeryIncidence (geometry)ResuscitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burns are one of the most common and devastating forms of trauma. Patients with serious thermal injury require immediate specialized care in order to minimize morbidity and mortality. Significant thermal injuries induce a state of immunosuppression that predisposes burn patients to infectious complications. A current summary of the classifications of burn wound infections, including their diagnosis, treatment, and prevention, is given. Early excision of the eschar has substantially decreased the incidence of invasive burn wound infection and secondary sepsis, but most deaths in severely burn-injured patients are still due to burn wound sepsis or complications due to inhalation injury. Burn patients are also at risk for developing sepsis secondary to pneumonia, catheter-related infections, and suppurative thrombophlebitis. The introduction of silver-impregnated devices (e.g., central lines and Foley urinary catheters) may reduce the incidence of nosocomial infections due to prolonged placement of these devices. Improved outcomes for severely burned patients have been attributed to medical advances in fluid resuscitation, nutritional support, pulmonary and burn wound care, and infection control practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1,842
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Microbiology ReviewsSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207