Trends in the epidemiology of major burn injury among hospitalized patients: A population-based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Burn-related mortality has decreased significantly over the past several decades. Although often attributed in part to regionalization of burn care, this has not been evaluated at the population level. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study of all patients with 20% or higher total body surface area burn injury in Ontario, Canada. Adult (≥16 years) patients injured between 2003 and 2013 were included. Deaths in the emergency department were excluded. Logistic generalized estimating equations were used to estimate risk-adjusted 30-day mortality. Mortality trends were compared at burn and nonburn centers. RESULTS: Seven hundred seventy-two patients were identified at 84 centers (2 burn, 82 nonburn). Patients were 74% (n = 570) male, of median age 46 (interquartile range [IQR], 35-60) years and median total body surface area 35% (IQR, 25-45). Mortality at 30 days was 19% (n = 149). The proportion of patients treated at a burn center increased from 57% to 71% between 2003 and 2013 (p = 0.07). Average risk-adjusted 30-day mortality rates decreased over time; there were significantly reduced odds of death in 2010 to 2013 compared with 2003 to 2006 (odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.61). Burn centers exhibited significantly reduced mortality from 2003-2006 to 2010-2013 (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.34-0.38) compared with nonburn centers (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.13-1.24). CONCLUSION: Mortality rates have decreased over time; significant improvements have occurred at burn centers, whereas mortality rates at nonburn centers vary widely. A high proportion of patients continue to receive care outside of burn centers. These data suggest that there are further opportunities to regionalize burn care and in so doing, potentially lower burn-related mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level III; Therapy, level IV.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".