MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049363196

IMPACT OF BURN SEVERITY, TIME SINCE BURN AND AGE ON THE COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING OF WOMEN WHO HAD BURN INJURIES

2020· article· en· W3049363196 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iram Naz, Zaqia Bano, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Saima Riaz, Razia Anjum

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurn outBurn injuryMedicineCognitionSevere burnBurn-inPsychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatrySurgeryEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To investigate the impact of burn severity, time since burn and age on the cognitive functioning of women who had burn injuries. Study Design: Cross sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Department of Psychology, University of Gujrat, from Nov 2017 to Jul 2018. Methodology: The data were collected from females suffering burn injuries. The burn severity, time since burn and age were assessed to see their impact on cognitive functioning of women with burns injured. Further, Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale was used to measure the construct of cognitive functioning. Results: Among a total of 200 burn victims, 52.5% had the severity level of third degree burns. A total of 75% victims had 6-15 months old burns and 64.5% belonged to age group of 19-34 years. The predictive association among variables based on difference of training and testing relative error (0.61) indicated the significant predictive relationship of burn severity, time since burn and age on the cognitive functioning of burn injured women. Further, relationship of burn severity, time since burn, and age was investigated. The relative importance of burn severity, time since burn and age in predicting cognitive functioning was 0.700, 0.163 and 0.136 respectively. Conclusion: Burn severity, time since burn and age are the factors affecting the cognitive functioning of female burn victims. Whereas role of burn severity was more prominent than time since burn and age.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.495
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207