18 Epidemiological Analysis of Paediatric Burns in the Dominican Republic Reveals a Demographic Profile at Significant Risk for Electrical Burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric burns can be prevented with legislative and infrastructural changes. Although retrospective audits of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) have aided preventative efforts, the epidemiological status of burns in the Caribbean is not known. The objective of this study was to characterize pediatric burns in the Dominican Republic and compare these to age-matched North American records captured by the National Burn Repository. A retrospective audit of 1600 patients admitted to the Unidad de Niños Quemados Dra. Thelma Rosario Hospital between January 2010 to March 2017 was performed. Variables analyzed included age, gender, burn mechanism, year, month, city, admission duration, nationality, mortality, and % total body surface area (TBSA). Pediatric burn patients in the Dominican Republic sustained larger burns (8.2% vs. 6.5% TBSA) and spent more days in the hospital (10 vs. 6 days). Overall, females were overrepresented (M:F = 1:1.5) and mortality amongst the admitted patients was 4-fold higher (2.8% vs. 0.7%). Electrical burns were significantly overrepresented in the Dominican patients (21%) compared to age-matched North American patients (2%). Although electrical burns were smaller (4% TBSA), compared to scald (14% TBSA) and flame (19% TBSA), these burns had a high mortality rate (3%). Finally, we found geographical and age group differences in the distribution of burn mechanism but didn’t observe significant seasonality over different months. A demographical profile where electrical burns account for a significant percentage of the burn population is identified. This is interesting because the proportion of pediatric electrical burns seen in this region is unlike other LMIC previously characterized. These findings provide a basis for concentrating preventative efforts in a vulnerable population. This study provides a rationale to investigate infrastructural enablers of electrical burns in the Dominican. Such efforts can develop effective prevention programs aimed at reducing the frequency and severity of burns sustained.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".