Burn Shock and Resuscitation: Review and State of the Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burn shock and acute fluid resuscitation continue to spark intense interest and debate among burn clinicians. Following a major burn injury, fluid resuscitation of burn shock is life-saving, but paradoxically can also be a source of increased morbidity and mortality because of the unintended consequence of systemic edema formation. Considerable research over the past two decades has been devoted to understanding the mechanisms of edema formation, and to develop strategies to curb resuscitation fluids and limit edema development. Recognition of burn endotheliopathy - injury to the endothelium's glycocalyx layer- is one of the most important recent developments in our understanding of burn shock pathophysiology. Newer monitoring approaches and resuscitation endpoints, along with alternative resuscitation strategies to crystalloids alone, such as administration of albumin, or plasma, or high dose ascorbic acid, have had mixed results in limiting fluid creep. Clear demonstration of improvements in outcomes with all of these approaches remains elusive. This comprehensive review article on burn shock and acute resuscitation accompanies the American Burn Association's State of the Science meeting held in New Orleans, LA on November 2-3, 2021 and the Proceedings of that conference published in this journal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".