MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922090784 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irz013.009

5 Trajectories of Survivors versus Non-Survivors Post-Burn Injury

2019· article· en· W2922090784 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Rehou, Mile Stanojcic, Marc G. Jeschke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypermetabolismBurn injuryInternal medicineCohortMann–Whitney U testInjury Severity ScorePoison controlSurgeryInjury preventionEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Survival post-burn injury has improved over the past few decades. However, there are still a large proportion of patients that do not survive. Survival can be affected by the complexity of the burn injury itself, pre-existing medical conditions, and complications. The purpose of this study was to characterize the phases of inflammatory and metabolic trajectories in survivors and non-survivors. Furthermore, we compared the trajectories for early and late death in non-survivors. We conducted a cohort study in patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with a burn injury admitted to our provincial burn centre. Blood samples, clinical indicators, and metabolic markers were selected based on time post-injury as follows: 0–1, 2–4, 5–10, 11–18, 19–28, ≥ 29 days. The inflammatory profile included IL-1β, interferon-γ, IL-1 receptor antagonist, IL-6, IL-10, IL-8, TNF-α, GM-CSF, and MCP-1. Hypermetabolism was assessed by resting energy expenditure. Clinical outcomes included organ biomarkers, morbidities, and hospital length of stay. Groups were compared using Student’s t-test, Mann-Whitney U, Fisher’s exact, and χ2 test as appropriate; P value of <0.05 considered statistically significant. Multivariable regression was used to model the association between survivors and non-survivors, adjusting for patient and injury characteristics. We studied 1,749 patients, mean age 47 ± 18 years and 33 ± 13% TBSA burn, with 1,623 survivors and 126 non-survivors. Demographics and injury characteristics were significantly different among survivors and non-survivors: mean age was 45 ± 18 versus 62 ± 18 (p<0.0001), proportion of inhalation injury 206 (13%) versus 73 (58%) (p<0.0001), and 11 ± 12% versus 48 ± 30% TBSA burn (p<0.0001) respectively. Of the non-survivors, 73 (58%) of died within the first four days of injury. After adjustment for patient and injury characteristics, organ biomarkers including creatinine, BUN, ALP, ALT, AST, bilirubin, lactate, and pH; and cytokines IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, MCP-1, TNF-α, G-CSF, and MCP-1 were significantly higher in non-survivors (p<0.05). Notably, these differences were further augmented among early and late non-survivors. Survivors and non-survivors express distinct inflammatory and metabolic responses post-injury. Identifying the relationship of concomitant immune activation and suppression among survivors and non-survivors may improve patient outcomes by defining and altering inflammatory trajectories. Elucidating the differences in trajectories among early and late non-survivors could better allow for prediction and identification of patients at risk to die.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207