Impaired Immune Response in Elderly Burn Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Comparing the inflammatory and immunological trajectories in burned adults versus burned elderly patients to gain novel insights and better understanding why elderly have poor outcomes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Despite receiving the same treatment and clinical consideration as all other burn patients, elderly patients continue to have substantially poorer outcomes compared with adults. In light of an aging population, gaining a better understanding of their susceptibility to complications and creating new treatment strategies is imperative. METHODS: We included 130 burn patients (94 adults: <65 years old and 36 elderly: ≥65 years old) and 10 healthy controls in this study. Immune activity and expression was assessed using bioplex at various time points. Clinical outcomes such as infection, sepsis, and mortality were prospectively collected. RESULTS: Elderly burn patients had significantly lower burn size but significantly higher Baux scores. Morbidity and mortality was significantly increased in the elderly cohort. Immune biomarkers indicated that elderly are immune compromised and unable to respond with the expected inflammatory response during the early phase after injury. This trajectory changes to a hyperinflammatory pattern during the later phase after burn. These findings are even more pronounced when comparing sepsis versus nonsepsis patients as well as survivors versus nonsurvivors in the elderly. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly burned patients mount a delayed immune and dampened inflammatory response early after burn injury that changes to an augmented response at later time points. Late-onset sepsis and nonsurvivors had an immune exhaustion phenotype, which may represent one of the main mediators responsible for the striking mortality in elderly.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".