Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burn injuries have long been acknowledged as one of the most painful experiences known to man; however, the recognition that chronic pain is an important and prevalent long-term sequelae postburn injury is more recent. Itch or pruritus are complaints that develop as the burn wound and donor sites begin to heal. Like chronic pain, our understanding of itch is still evolving and has changed enormously based on recent research findings. In order to thoroughly explore the published research advances during the past 10 years, a literature search was performed between 2006 and 2015. Peer-reviewed manuscripts that included original clinical data from case series or higher level evidence on burn survivors resulted in 146 manuscripts; however, for the sake of brevity only the most recent evidence was retained. Although the magnitude of acute burn pain was well established, more recent findings have shown that events that increase the expression of inflammatory mediators, further intensifies the pain experienced.1 Qualitative research has reported that patients experience uncontrolled pain and that their satisfaction with care is closely related to their pain management.2,3 Although unrelieved pain is an important issue unto itself, it is particularly important to address due to the fact that it is has been associated with poorer long-term outcomes.4 Although the literature is not as extensive in children, uncontrolled pain during the acute phase has been associated with long-term morbidity.5,6 Previous research has reported that pain is inadequately evaluated and undertreated, with more recent literature confirming that this continues to be an issue7 and extending these findings to prehospital care.8
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".