The Relationship of Methanol and Formate Concentrations in Fatalities Where Methanol Is Detected
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An automated headspace gas chromatography method was developed for the determination of formate (formic acid) in postmortem specimens, based on the in situ sulfuric acid-methanol methylation of formic acid to methyl formate. Diisopropyl ether was used as an internal standard. The method was applied to over 150 postmortem cases where methanol was detected. Of the 153 cases presented, 107 deaths were attributed to acute methanol toxicity. In the vast majority of the remaining 46 deaths, the methanol was determined to be present as a postmortem or perimortem artifact, or was otherwise incidental to the cause of death. Of the 76 victims who were found dead and blood was collected by the medical examiner, all but one had a postmortem blood formate concentration greater than 0.50 g/L (mean 0.85 g/L; n = 74). The sole exception involved suicidal ingestion of methanol where the blood methanol concentration was 7.9 g/L (790 mg/100 mL) and blood formate 0.12 g/L. In 97% (72/74) of the cases where blood was available, the blood formate was between 0.60 and 1.40 g/L. In 31 of the 153 cases, the victim was hospitalized and blood obtained on admission or soon after was analyzed for methanol and formate during the subsequent death investigation; the vast majority (27/30) had antemortem blood formate concentrations greater than 0.50 g/L. Cases with samples taken prior to death with blood formate concentrations less than 0.5 g/L can readily be explained by active treatment such as dialysis. The blood formate method has also been useful in confirming probable perimortem or postmortem contamination of one of more fluids or tissues with methanol (e.g., windshield washer fluid or embalming fluid), where methanol ingestion was unlikely.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".