MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4365137502 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irad022

American Burn Association Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Treatment of Severe Frostbite

2023· article· en· W4365137502 on OpenAlexaff
Lucy Wibbenmeyer, Alexandra Lacey, Frederick W Endorf, Sarvesh Logsetty, Anne Wagner, Angela Gibson, Rachel M. Nygaard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaChildren's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFrostbiteAmputationIloprostPopulationSurgeryEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Clinical Practice Guideline addresses severe frostbite treatment. We defined severe frostbite as atmospheric cooling that results in a perfusion deficit to the extremities. We limited our review to adults and excluded cold contact or rapid freeze injuries that resulted in isolated devitalized tissue. After developing population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions, a comprehensive literature search was conducted with the help of a professional medical librarian. Available literature was reviewed and systematically evaluated. Recommendations based on the available scientific evidence were formulated through consensus of a multidisciplinary committee. We conditionally recommend the use of rapid rewarming in a 38 to 42°C water bath and the use of thrombolytics for fewer amputations and/or a more distal level of amputation. We conditionally recommend the use of "early" administration of thrombolytics (≤12 hours from rewarming) compared to "later" administration of thrombolytics for fewer amputations and/or a more distal level of amputation. No recommendation could be formed on the use of vascular imaging studies to determine the use of and/or the time to initiate thrombolytic therapy. No recommendation could be formed on the use of intravenous thrombolytics compared to the use of intra-arterial thrombolytics on fewer amputations and/or a more distal level of amputation. No recommendation could be formed on the use of iloprost resulting in fewer amputations and/or more distal levels of amputation. No recommendation could be formed on the use of diagnostic imaging modalities for surgical planning on fewer amputations, a more distal level of amputation, or earlier timing of amputation.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.010

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207