Healthcare Resource Utilization Associated with Burns and Necrotizing Fasciitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) patients are increasingly managed in burn units. Although treated similarly to burns, the healthcare resource utilization (HRU) in NF appears to be greater. Accurate knowledge of the HRU is important to better allocate resources and to compare outcomes between units. The goal of this study is to provide better understanding of the HRU for NF compared with burns. A retrospective chart review of patients ≥18 years admitted to two regional tertiary referral centers with either NF or burns requiring surgery. The authors examined age, sex, %TBSA, geographic region, anatomical location, length of stay (LOS) in hospital, LOS in intensive care unit, number of operative procedures, number of packed red blood cells transfused, amputation, death, and use of free tissue transfer or skin graft. There were 210 NF and 209 burn patients. The NF cohort had a smaller TBSA (3.3 vs 10.0%), longer LOS (20 vs 14 days), and consequently a longer LOS/%TBSA (6.0 vs 1.5 days). This difference persisted after adjusting for age. More of the NF cohort (44.8%) spent ≥1 day in the intensive care unit. The NF cohort also had more procedures (median 2 vs 1), required blood (46.2 vs 16.7%), died in hospital (13.3 vs 4.3%), had an amputation (12.4 vs 4.8%), or required free tissue transfer (7.6 vs 2.9%). This study shows that NF requires substantially more HRU compared with burns. This information is important in recognizing the impact of these patients on burn units and planning for allocation of appropriate resources.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".