Deep and extensive pediatric burns: retrospective evaluation of scheme of patients at the Department of Children’s Developmental Defects Surgery and Traumatology SUM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Burns are one of the most common injuries among children. Despite the scale of the problem, there is no generally accepted algorithm for dealing with burn wounds in children in Poland. Aim: The aim of our study was to evaluate our treatment scheme as well as the long-term effects of burn treatment in our department. Material and methods: We conducted a telephone survey with the parents of patients treated at our ward in 01.01.2016-01.01.2021 due to thermal burns. To assess the cosmetic effect of treatment, the modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) was used, as well as the evaluation of parents' satisfaction with the treatment of patients on a scale from 1 to 10. Criteria to be included were the thermal burn of the skin to at least a 2b degree and/or burns with not less than 8% of the Total Body Surface Area (TBSA), as well as answering all the questions included in the questionnaire. The inclusion criteria were met by 38 out of 97 hospitalized patients. Results: 26.32% of patients achieved 0 points on the mVSS, 21.05% achieved 1 point, 15.79% achieved 2 points, 15.79% achieved 3 points, 2.63% patients received 4 points, 5.26% patients received 5 points, 5.26% patients received 7 points, 2.63% patients received 8 points, 2.63% patients received 9 points, 2.63% of patients received 10 points, none of the patients received 6 and 11 points higher. 3% of parents rated their satisfaction at 5 points, 3% of caretakers as 7 points, 8% as 8 points, 8% as 9 points, and 89% as 10 points. Discussion: Our treatment algorithm brings good therapeutic effects and is also very well received by the patients' parents. In order to carry out a nationwide standardization of the treatment of childhood burn wounds, it would be necessary to conduct a similarly constructed study in a multicenter setting.
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".