110 Seven-Year Analysis of National Rehabilitation Trends and Outcomes Among Burn Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The recovery journey for individuals with major burns is often protracted, necessitating extended stays at rehabilitation facilities before they can return home. We aimed to describe national resource utilization and outcomes related to inpatient rehabilitation following burn injury. Methods In this retrospective population-based study, we examined all admissions to inpatient rehabilitation facilities from April 1, 2016-March 31, 2023, available from a national repository of health administrative data. This database aggregates information from participating adult inpatient rehabilitation facilities (including 104 programs by May 2022) in 9 provinces. Results During the 7-year study period, we identified 513 burn patients who were admitted to inpatient rehabilitation in the database. Burn patients were overall younger, with a greater proportion of burn survivors under 45 years of age (25.9%-54.2%) compared to the general rehabilitation population (5.5%-6.1%). Throughout the study period, burn patients consistently experienced a longer median length of stay, which generally increased from 26.5 days in 2017 to 30.5 days in 2023. In contrast, the median length of stay for the general rehabilitation population remained stable between 22.0-23.0 days. Throughout the study period, 66.1% of burn patients reported improved pain levels upon discharge from the rehabilitation facility. Moreover, burn patients demonstrated enhancements in their motor functional scores, with an average increase score of 20.3-29.8 per year, as determined by the 18-item Functional Independence Measure instrument. Conclusions Burn patients experience extended rehabilitation admissions when compared to the general rehabilitation population. Their improvements in pain and functional scores emphasize the importance of rehabilitation in facilitating their recovery and improving their quality of life. Applicability of Research to Practice This national population-based study underscores the importance of rehabilitation services in the recovery of burn patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".