Death Caused by Cardioinhibitory Reflex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The danger of neck compression without restriction of the arterial flow remains unresolved in forensic medicine. There is an ongoing debate concerning life endangerment due to the cardioinhibitory reflex. The aim of this study was to determine what forensic medical experts believe and how they deal with this reflex. An anonymous electronic questionnaire was sent to 1429 forensic medical experts all over the world. We asked them about their opinion on the cardioinhibitory reflex, its role in causing death, and what their diagnostic criteria were.A total of 182 questionnaires were returned. The experts who answered were from 32 different countries. Our survey showed that 80.2% of experts believe that the cardioinhibitory reflex can theoretically cause death. In the practical application opinions diverge though. Apparently, the practical application mainly depends on the habit of the individual expert. We observed no consensus on the diagnostic criteria to be used. Given the potentially frequent use of the concept of the cardioinhibitory reflex in forensic practice and its judicial impact it would be important to reach a consensus.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".