Burn Resuscitation Practices in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: ABRUPT was a prospective, noninterventional, observational study of resuscitation practices at 21 burn centers. The primary goal was to examine burn resuscitation with albumin or crystalloids alone, to design a future prospective randomized trial. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: No modern prospective study has determined whether to use colloids or crystalloids for acute burn resuscitation. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years with burns ≥ 20% total body surface area (TBSA) had hourly documentation of resuscitation parameters for 48 hours. Patients received either crystalloids alone or had albumin supplemented to crystalloid based on center protocols. RESULTS: Of 379 enrollees, two-thirds (253) were resuscitated with albumin and one-third (126) were resuscitated with crystalloid alone. Albumin patients received more total fluid than Crystalloid patients (5.2 ± 2.3 vs 3.7 ± 1.7 mL/kg/% TBSA burn/24 hours), but patients in the Albumin Group were older, had larger burns, higher admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, and more inhalation injury. Albumin lowered the in-to-out (I/O) ratio and was started ≤12 hours in patients with the highest initial fluid requirements, given >12 hours with intermediate requirements, and avoided in patients who responded to crystalloid alone. CONCLUSIONS: Albumin use is associated with older age, larger and deeper burns, and more severe organ dysfunction at presentation. Albumin supplementation is started when initial crystalloid rates are above expected targets and improves the I/O ratio. The fluid received in the first 24 hours was at or above the Parkland Formula estimate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".