Diagnosis of Long-Term Sequelae After Low-Voltage Electrical Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of diagnostic tests and specialty consultations in aiding the diagnosis of long-term symptoms after low-voltage electrical injury (EI). A retrospective hospital chart review of low-voltage electrical-injured patients admitted to the outpatient burn clinic of a rehabilitation hospital was conducted (January 2002 to March 2006). Results of tests and specialty consultations were compared between patients with low-voltage contact injuries and patients with low-voltage flash injuries using Student's t-test and χ(2) with a P < .05 considered significant. Forty patients were treated for low-voltage EI, and all injuries occurred at work. Three patients were excluded due to lack of exact voltage documentation. Of the remaining 37 patients, there were 31 males (83.8%) and 6 females (16.2%) with a mean age of 36.7 ± 11.0 years and a mean TBSA of 7.7 ± 7.3%. Of 83 specialty consultations, the most frequents were psychology (38.6%), physiatry (21.7%), neurology (15.7%), and orthopedic (8.4%). Eighty percent of consultations were negative (no pathology). Patients with electrical contact injury had more specialty consultations (68.7 vs 31.3%, P = .003), especially neurology (21.1 vs 3.8%, P = .027), and more tests than patients with electrical flash injury (86.5 vs 13.5%, P < .001). Four (6.3%) CT scans and 14 (21.9%) magnetic resonance imaging scans were performed in electrical contact injury patients, but the majority of their results were negative (75 and 71.4%, respectively). Ultrasound, bone scan, and x-rays were negative: 80, 100, and 100%, respectively. Low-voltage electrical-injured patients are frequently referred for specialty consultations and tests, which are usually not effective to correlate their long-term symptoms with the initial EI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".