Variation in burn wound management approaches for paediatric burn patients in Australia and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, no large-scale exploration of the profile of, and variance among paediatric patients who underwent a burn wound management procedure in theatre exists in an Australian and New Zealand context. This study aims to provide a profile of paediatric burn patients who underwent a burn wound management procedure in theatre during an acute admission and highlight specific areas of practice where there is variation between burn services that may affect treatment efficacy and efficiency. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all paediatric patients (ages <16 years) who sustained a burn injury between July 2016 and June 2019 and underwent a burn wound management procedure in theatre, using data from the Burns Registry Australia New Zealand. RESULTS: The number of patients across burn services decreased as TBSA increased. Deep dermal burns represented the majority of cases across services. There was significant variation in time from injury to admission and the proportion of patients who received skin grafts across services. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in the patient profile and clinical practices were observed among burn services. A greater understanding of the factors underlying the variations at each particular service will also be helpful.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".