A Mini-review about Concomitant Burn and COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19 can cause different catastrophic events and mortalities. Therefore, burn hospitals strategies changed during regional peak of COVID-19 pandemic in the world. Some outpatient strategies were introduced to minimize the contact with infected patients. However, admission strategies were based on the severity of COVID-19 symptoms and also severity of burn injuries. The policy for admission to give inpatient care relates to history, symptoms and COVID-19 PCR results. If all the mentioned criteria were negative, the burn patient was admitted to GREEN area or ward. If the patient was suspected or positive for COVID-19, then would be admitted to RED area or ward. Given that some patients may be carriers without specific symptoms, considering a YELLOW area or ward seems logical for these groups. In GREEN areas one care giver for each adult and two care givers for each pediatric patient were allowed. For all care givers wearing medical masks were obligatory. All patients, care givers and staffs were under constant surveillance for fever and other symptoms. In RED areas no visitors were allowed and for each patient one nurse was assigned in BICU. All elective surgeries were stopped and other procedures were divided to emergency and semi-emergency. Strategies for facing COVID-19 surges especially new variants need to continuously evolve. Changing of infectivity rate, manifestations, resistance to different vaccine and duration of viral shedding necessitate modification of principles according to data collected from involving countries.
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 | 0.177 | 0.532 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".