MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3146617198 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irab032.175

524 Use of Broad-Spectrum Antibiotics and Sepsis-3 Criteria in Burns

2021· article· en· W3146617198 on OpenAlexaff
Luis E Meza, Sarah Rehou, Shahriar Shahrohki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSepsisSOFA scoreInternal medicineBurn injuryAntibioticsCohortPopulationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Sepsis is a diagnostic challenge in critically ill patients; especially so in the burn population because the signs and symptoms of sepsis are pervasive after injury. The Sepsis-3 criteria identify organ dysfunction as an acute change in SOFA score ≥ 2 points consequent to infection. The objective of this study was to evaluate if Sepsis-3 criteria were fulfilled when broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy was started in a burn cohort. Methods We included all adult (≥ 18 years) patients with an acute burn admitted to our burn centre within 2 days of injury between 2016 and 2019. Only patients that received meropenem or piperacillin/tazobactam during their acute hospitalization period were included. Patients were stratified based on the Sepsis-3 definition using evidence of infection and evaluation of organ failure in the 48-hour period prior to the administration of antibiotics. Results We studied 70 patients, with 24 patients in the control group and 46 patients in the Sepsis-3 group. Demographics were similar among the control and Sepsis-3 groups: mean age was 44 ± 18 versus 48 ± 18 years (p=0.372); but injury severity was significantly different: median percent TBSA burn 18% vs. 32% (p=0.003) and proportion of inhalation injury 13% vs. 50% (p=0.002). Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer in the Sepsis-3 group, control group median 23 days vs. median 43 days (p< 0.001). However, LOS/TBSA was not significantly different in the control group compared to the Sepsis-3 group: median 1.6 vs. 1.4 days per percent TBSA burn (p=0.777). Mortality was similar among the groups: 13% vs. 20% (p=0.526). The proportion of patients diagnosed by a physician with sepsis was also similar with 21% in the control group vs. 33% in the Sepsis-3 group (p=0.406). Conclusions Though the Sepsis-3 group had greater injury severity, mortality, and LOS in-hospital, when normalized to TBSA, was similar. Patients were diagnosed by a physician with sepsis in less than a third of cases. This raises the question of why broad-spectrum antibiotics were started. Potentially, patients were treated based on clinical suspicion of sepsis instead of delaying treatment until diagnosis was confirmed. Benefits of early antibiotic administration must be considered in conjunction with antimicrobial stewardship.

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)0.001
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.319 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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