MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009903386 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/iraa024.068

64 E-cigarette and Vaporizer-related Burn Injury: Demographics and Injury Patterns

2020· article· en· W3009903386 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kiran U Dyamenahalli, Derek M. Wengryn, Arek J Wiktor, Elizabeth J. Kovacs, Patrick Duffy, Anne L Lambert Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDemographicsIncidence (geometry)Burn injuryPopulationBurn centerInjury preventionDemographyPoison controlEmergency medicineEnvironmental healthSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction E-cigarettes and vaporizers (E-cigs) have seen a dramatic surge in popularity. The Centers for Disease Control now estimates that 1 in 4 United States (US) high school students use E-cigs. Recent recognition of E-cig-related lung injury has garnered significant attention. However, relatively little is known about E-cig-related burn injuries, which are often due to battery explosion and liquid ignition. The objective of this study was to characterize population demographics and injury patterns associated with E-cig burns. Methods A retrospective review of all patients presenting with E-cig-related cutaneous burn injury to a verified US burn center between January 2015 and August 2019 was performed using an institutional database. In addition, media reports covering the same mechanism of injury and date range were collected using databases for the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, and international news outlets. Demographic data and injury metrics were recorded. Results 309 international media reports and 30 institutional cases of E-cig-related burn injuries were identified. Media-reported injuries varied with respect to geographic location: US-185, United Kingdom-35, Canada-6, all other countries-8, unclear-75. Annual incidence peaked in 2016 in media reports (2019-19, 2018–61, 2017–68, 2016–106, 2015–55) and institutional records (2019-3, 2018-5, 2017-6, 2016-16, 2015-0). Injuries predominantly involved men in both media (Male 75.7%, Female 13.9%, unknown 10.4%) and institutional (Male 93.3%, Female 6.7%) datasets. Average age was 31.0 years (media) and 30.3 years (institutional). The institutional data revealed an average TBSA of 3.5% (range 1–8.5%), an average length of stay of 3.8 days (range 0–14 days), and a median number of operations of 1 (range 0–2). 90% (n=27) of patients required inpatient admission and one patient required mechanical ventilation. On admission, 58% (n=14) of patients screened positive for cannabis use. A ranking of anatomic regions by frequency of involvement was consistent between datasets: lower extremity > hands > head/neck > torso > groin. Mortality rates were also similar: 1.62% (media) and 0% (institutional). Conclusions E-cig-related burns are non-trivial injuries, most of which require inpatient admission, operative management, and substantial resource use. They disproportionately affect young men and burns often involve sensitive areas like the hands and face. Applicability of Research to Practice Combined with rising popularity, lax regulation, proliferation of counterfeit products, and associated lung injury, E-cig-related burns represent an evolving health threat. This study highlights the importance of reporting injuries to consumer product regulatory agencies and the need for further research into the causes and consequences of E-cig explosion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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