MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336098412 · doi:10.1177/229255031402200202

A review of hydrofluoric acid burn management

2014· review· en· W2336098412 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic Surgery · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedical and Biological Ozone Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensive care medicineMedicinePresentation (obstetrics)Severe burnChemical burnPathophysiologySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydrofluoric acid (HF) causes a unique chemical burn. Much of the current treatment knowledge of HF burns is derived from case reports, small case series, animal studies and anecdotal evidence. The management can be challenging because clinical presentation and severity of these burns vary widely. Plastic surgeons managing burn patients must have a basic understanding of the pathophysiology, the range of severity in presentation and the current treatment options available for HF burns. The present article reviews the current understanding of the pathophysiology and systemic effects associated with severe HF burns. Furthermore, it distinguishes between minor and life-threatening HF burns and describes several of the basic techniques that are available to treat patients with HF burns.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.260 · 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