MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988468917 · doi:10.1097/icb.0b013e31818c5e2e

BILATERAL CIRCUMFERENTIAL MACULAR FOLDS IN INFLICTED CHILDHOOD NEUROTRAUMA

2010· article· en· W1988468917 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanna Airiani, Howard F. Fine, Joseph D. Walrath, Michael F. Chiang, John T. Flynn

Bibliographic record

VenueRetinal Cases & Brief Reports · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Abuse and Related Trauma
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsMedicineFundus (uterus)OphthalmologyFundus photographyRetinalAbnormalityMacular holePupilNeuro-ophthalmologyRetinaVitrectomyFluorescein angiographyGlaucomaVisual acuity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Purpose: To report an infant with inflicted neurotrauma who exhibited bilateral circumferential macular folds. Methods: Bedside ophthalmic examination and fundus photography using RetCam-II (Clarity Medical Systems, Pleasanton, CA). Results: Both pupils were miotic and nonreactive. External and anterior segments showed no abnormality. The fundus showed bilateral diffuse multilaminar retinal, subhyaloid, and vitreous hemorrhages. Distinctive macular folds were noted bilaterally. Conclusion: Circumferential macular folds are most commonly found in abused infants, although it has been suggested that they may be associated with Terson syndrome and severe crush injury. Circumferential macular folds are most commonly found in abused infants, although it has been suggested that they may be associated with Terson syndrome and severe crush injury.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRetinal Cases & Brief ReportsSame topicChild Abuse and Related TraumaFrench-language works237,207