MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414599628 · doi:10.1097/bcr.0000000000000265

Postburn Hypermetabolism

2015· review· en· W2414599628 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc G. Jeschke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsHypermetabolismMedicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypermetabolism is the ubiquitous response to a severe burn injury, which was first described in the nineteenth century. Despite identification of important components of this complex response, hypermetabolism is still not well understood in its entirety. This article describes this incredibly fascinating response and the understanding we have gained over the past 100 years. Additionally, this article describes novel insights and delineates treatment options to modulate postburn hypermetabolism with the goal to improve outcomes of burn patients.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.264
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.259 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations121
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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