881 Content Evaluation of First Aid Information of Burn Centre Websites Worldwide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While the internet is an invaluable resource for both patients and healthcare providers in the management of burns, websites are often unregulated and highly variable in the quality of their content. Burns centres are in the unique position of possessing presumed reputability amongst the public. It is therefore imperative that their websites provide information that is consistent in its content, through a format that is accessible and coherent. In this study, we aimed to evaluate first aid websites of burns centres in the UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This study highlights the importance of the leadership role that these centres should possess online. A multicentre, observational, cross-sectional study was performed over a period of two years (October 2020 to July 2022). Each centre’s website was evaluated using a 10-point scoring system to assess burns first aid content accuracy. The content was evaluated using a scoring system by Burgress et al, that is based on the basic burns first aid principles of “stop, remove, cool and cover”. 188 burn centres across the stated countries were included. The country with the highest average score was Australia & New Zealand (5), followed by the USA (2.89), Canada (1.78) and the UK & Ireland (2.89). The consistency of content and quality of these resources remains an area for potential improvement and should be considered in the future design of such websites. The most common step missed in burn first aid was to keep victims warm to prevent hypothermia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".