A survey of current practices in the diagnosis of and interventions for inhalational injuries in Canadian burn centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize current Canadian practice patterns in the diagnosis of and interventions for inhalation injuries (INHI). METHODS: A 10-question survey regarding the diagnosis of and interventions for INHI was sent to the medical directors of all 16 burn centres across Canada. RESULTS: The response rate to the survey was 50%. Fibreoptic bronchoscopy is required for the diagnosis of INHI in only four centres (50%). The departments of intensive care, plastic surgery, otolaryngology and respirology are involved in performing fibreoptic bronchoscopy in 87.5%, 37.5%, 12.5% and 12.5% of Canadian burn centres, respectively. Intubation for INHI is most often based on physical examination results (87.5%) and clinical history (75%). The most common physical features believed to be most consistent with INHI are dyspnea (87.5%) and hoarseness (87.5%). Common treatments include intubation (87.5%), routine ventilatory support (87.5%) and chest physiotherapy (75%). None of the centres used nebulized heparin. A total of five centres (62.5%) routinely changed the fluid resuscitation protocol when INHI was diagnosed. Only two centres (25%) routinely used prophylactic antibiotics for INHI. CONCLUSION: Prospective, multicentre trials are needed to generate evidence-based consensus in the areas of diagnosis, grading and treatment for INHI in Canada.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".