MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366989697 · doi:10.1111/iwj.14199

RETRACTED: Acute burns during the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 pandemic: A one‐year retrospective study of 611 patients at a referral burn centre in northern Iran

2023· article· en· W4366989697 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadreza Mobayen, Hossein Torabi, Parissa Bagheri Toolaroud, Mohammad Tolouei, Anoush Dehnadi Moghadam, Mohammad Saadatmand, Habib Eslami Kenarsari, Alireza Feizkhah, Mohammad Javad Ghazanfari, Joseph Osuji, Pooyan Ghorbani Vajargah, Samad Karkhah

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonConcerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions;Compromised Peer Review;Investigation by Journal/Publisher;Investigation by Third Party;Objections by Author(s);
Date2/25/2025 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Wound Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Total body surface areaIntensive care unitRetrospective cohort studySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PandemicInternal medicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakEmergency medicineDiseaseOutbreakPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with acute burns are more vulnerable to COVID-19 because of physiologically weak immune systems. This study aimed to assess and compare individual characteristics, clinical features, and clinical outcomes of acute burn among COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. A retrospective study, with data collected from 611 acute burn patients with or without a COVID-19 diagnosis referred to a burn centre in Iran. Data were collected from April 2020 to 2021. The mean age of acute burns patients with COVID-19 was higher compared with acute burns patients with non-COVID-19 (47.82 vs. 32.59 years, P < .001). Acute burns occurred more frequently in COVID-19 patients with comorbidities compared with non-COVID-19 patients (48.72% vs. 26.92%, P = .003). 58.97% of COVID-19 patients and 55.42% of non-COVID-19 patients had grade II & III and II burns, respectively (P < .001). The mean total body surface area of the burn was higher in COVID-19 patients compared with non-COVID-19 patients (32.69% vs. 16.22%, P < .001). Hospitalisation in the intensive care unit (ICU) was higher in COVID-19 patients than in non-COVID-19 patients (76.92% vs. 15.73%, P < .001). Length of stay in hospital and ICU, the cost of hospitalisation, and waiting time for the operating room was higher in COVID-19 patients compared with non-COVID-19 patients (15.30 vs. 3.88 days, P < .001; 9.61 vs. 0.75 days, P < .001; 30 430 628.717 vs. 10 219 192.44 rials, P = .011; 0.84 vs. 0.24 min, P < .001, respectively). Intubation and mortality in-hospital were higher in COVID-19 patients compared with non-COVID-19 patients (41.02% vs. 6.99%, P < .001; 35.90% vs. 6.12%, P < .001, respectively). Therefore, it is recommended that health managers and policymakers develop a care plan to provide high-quality care to acute burns patients with COVID-19, especially in low-income 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Wound JournalSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207