MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187586286 · doi:10.1089/sur.2013.135

An Ounce of Prevention Saves Tons of Lives: Infection in Burns

2015· review· en· W2187586286 on OpenAlexafffund
Nishant Merchant, Karen Smith, Marc G. Jeschke

Bibliographic record

VenueSurgical Infections · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBioburdenMedicineFluid ounce (US)Intensive care medicineInfection controlPopulationIntensive care unitBurn unitsSurgeryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Modern day burn care continues to wage an uphill battle against an enemy that evolves faster than we can develop weapons. Bacteria (bioburden) are everywhere and can infiltrate anywhere within our susceptible population of burn patients. This is why prevention of infection is key to improving their survival and outcome. PURPOSE: To reduce the incidence of infection in the burn patient population. MATERIALS: Review of pertinent recent literature regarding infection prevention and control in the intensive care unit setting. RESULTS: We propose that bioburden is one of the central elements in the infectious cycle that is ever-present in burn units. The mechanism of bacterial entry into the unit and subsequent transmission and infection are delineated. Recommendations for mitigating this risk are provided to guide future clinicians in their care of burn patients. CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of infection and sepsis against highly adaptable bacteria is often insurmountable by ill patients. In this process, bioburden needs to be corralled to have any success. Thus, preventing organisms from entering the unit and transferring onto other patients, and eliminating the bacteria dwelling in the unit are all necessary actions in this battle. Ultimately, maintaining a culture that is constantly wary of this risk only can achieve this goal.

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)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurgical InfectionsSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207