MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221087725 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irac012.266

712 Association between administration of hydroxycobalamin and acute kidney injury in patients with burn injury

2022· article· en· W4221087725 on OpenAlexaff
Marcus Lo, Robert Cartotto, George Ho, Stephanie Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCassava research and cyanide
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTotal body surface areaAcute kidney injuryBurn centerBurn injuryIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort studyTrauma centerInjury Severity ScoreRenal replacement therapyKidney diseaseInternal medicineCohortSurgeryAnesthesiaPoison controlEmergency medicineInjury prevention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Hydroxycobalamin (HC) is administered to patients with suspected hydrogen cyanide poisoning. Some reports suggest that this practice may be associated with acute kidney injury (AKI). We aimed to evaluate the association between HC administration and AKI after burn injury. Methods We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study. All adults admitted to a regional ABA-verified burn center within 24 hours of injury between 2015-2019 with >10% total body surface area (TBSA) flame burn injury were reviewed. We excluded patients who were palliated within 48 hours of admission, and those with pre-existing renal disease. Patients who received HC, either pre-hospital, in the emergency department, or the burn center, were matched on age (+/-2 years) and %TBSA (+/-5%) to up to 5 patients who did not receive HC. Rates of AKI within 7 days of admission, as defined by KDIGO criteria, were then compared. Secondary outcomes included receipt of renal replacement therapy, death, ventilator days, and discharge disposition. Results We identified 10 patients who received HC; these patients were matched to 42 patients who did not receive HC. The median age of the HC group was 57 (IQR 43-66), compared to 65 in the non-HC group (IQR 57-65) (p= 0.98). The median %TBSA burn and %TBSA full thickness burn in the HC group and control was 16.5 (14-19) vs 13.5 (11-18) respectively (p= 0.22) and 3.5 vs 3.5 (0-9.5) respectively (p= 0.93). The incidence of inhalation injury in the HC group (n=8, 80%) was significantly higher than in the non-HC group (n=7, 17%)(p< 0.001). All HC patients were intubated within 24 hours of admission vs. only 48% of controls (p=0.003). The HC group also had significantly higher median SOFA scores on admission (9.5 vs 4, p< 0.001) and had a significantly higher admission creatinine [1.08 (0.95-1.26) vs 0.86 (0.71-1.02) mg/dl), p= 0.02]. The median 24-hour crystalloid fluid administered was 5911 mL/kg/%TBSA in the HC group vs 2774 mL/kg/%TBSA burn in controls (p= 0.004). All patients in the HC group developed AKI (n=10, 100%), compared to 64% (n=27) of non-HC patients (p=0.03). There was no significant difference in rates of death (20% vs 10%, p=0.35), Renal Replacement Therapy (20% vs 7%, p=0.21), discharge disposition, or ventilator days between groups. Conclusions We identified a small number of patients who received HC over a 5-year period at our burn center. There was an association between HC administration and development of AKI, but there were no differences in mortality, RRT, or ventilator days. HC administration is rare, and our data suggest that the sickest burn injured patients receive it. Larger studies are required to determine if HC administration is associated with AKI, or whether the increased rate of AKI in our study reflects illness severity.

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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicCassava research and cyanideFrench-language works237,207