Increased Rate of Long-term Mortality Among Burn Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate long-term mortality following major burn injury compared with matched controls. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The effect of sustaining a major burn injury on long-term life expectancy is poorly understood. METHODS: Using health administrative data, all adults who survived to discharge after major burn injury between 2003 and 2013 were matched to between 1 and 5 uninjured controls on age, sex, and the extent of both physical and psychological comorbidity. To account for socioeconomic factors such as residential instability and material deprivation, we also matched on marginalization index. The primary outcome was 5-year all-cause mortality, and all patients were followed until death or March 31, 2014. Cumulative mortality estimates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate the association of burn injury with mortality. RESULTS: In total, 1965 burn survivors of mean age 44 (standard deviation 17) years with median total body surface area burn of 15% [interquartile range (IQR) 5-15] were matched to 8671 controls and followed for a median 5 (IQR 2.5-8) years. Five-year mortality was significantly greater among burn survivors (11 vs 4%, P < 0.001). The hazard ratio was greatest during the first year (4.15, 95% CI 3.17-5.42), and declined each year thereafter, reaching 1.65 (95% CI 1.02-2.67) in the fifth year after discharge. Burn survivors had increased mortality related to trauma (mortality rate ratio, MRR 9.8, 95% CI 5-19) and mental illness (MRR 9.1, 95% CI 4-23). CONCLUSIONS: Burn survivors have a significantly higher rate of long-term mortality than matched controls, particularly related to trauma and mental illness. Burn follow-up should be focused on injury prevention, mental healthcare, and detection and treatment of new disease.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".