MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409315994 · doi:10.1097/bcr.0000000000000320

Does Bronchoscopic Evaluation of Inhalation Injury Severity Predict Outcome?

2015· article· en· W2409315994 on OpenAlexaff
Stefania Spano, Steven A. Hanna, Zeyu Li, Donna Wood, Robert Cartotto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInjury Severity ScoreBurn centerQuartileMechanical ventilationBurn injuryPopulationAirwayAnesthesiaInhalationInternal medicineSurgeryPoison controlInjury preventionEmergency medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although fiber-optic bronchoscopy is essential in the diagnosis of smoke inhalation injury (INH), controversy still exists over whether or not the visualized severity of the mucosal injury predicts clinically meaningful outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess whether the grade of mucosal INH severity was associated with various outcomes among adult burn patients. We conducted a retrospective review of all patients requiring greater than or equal to 48 hours of mechanical ventilation who were admitted between January 1, 2007 and June 1, 2014 to an adult regional American Burn Association-verified burn center. Bronchoscopy was performed on all subjects at burn center admission and grading of severity was documented using the grades 0 to 4 abbreviated injury score (AIS). Subjects with grade 1 or 2 injury formed the low-grade INH group, whereas those with grade 3 or 4 injury formed the high-grade INH group. Values are shown as the median (first to third quartiles). A P value less than .05 was considered significant. The study population consisted of 160 subjects (age, 48 [35-60] years; %TBSA burn, 28 [19-39.9]; % full thickness burn, 12.8 [0-30]; and 61% with INH). There were no significant differences in age, %TBSA burn, or % full thickness burn between subjects with different individual INH severity grades. Oxygenation on the day of injury worsened significantly as the severity of INH increased, but otherwise there were no significant differences in 24 and 48-hour fluid requirements, duration of ventilation, ventilator free days, incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome, or mortality between subjects with different individual grades of INH severity. Subjects with high-grade INH showed statistically insignificant trends toward larger 48-hour fluid volumes (P = .07), poorer oxygenation over the first 3 post burn days (P = .055), longer duration of ventilation (P = .08), and fewer ventilator free days (P = .047) than low-grade INH. High-grade and low-grade INH subjects did not differ significantly in the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome or mortality. The individual grades of the 0 to 4 AIS INH severity grading scale were not particularly robust in the prediction of various outcomes among a population of adult burn patients. However, clinically relevant trends toward worsened oxygenation over postburn days 0 to 3, longer duration of mechanical ventilation, and reduced ventilator-free days in association with more severe INH were identified when subjects were broadly stratified into low-grade (grades 1and 2) INH and high-grade (grades 3 and 4) INH. This suggests that there may clinically meaningful differences between patients with less and more severe INH, and that further refinement of the grades 0 to 4 AIS INH severity should be subjected to additional investigation.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations47
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207