Six‐Year Retrospective Study of Suicidal Hangings: Determination of the Pattern of Limb Lesions Induced by Body Responses to Asphyxia by Hanging*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the present study was to estimate the proportion of hanging victims presenting with limb lesions, to compare this rate between hanging in restraint spaces and in more open settings, and to describe the usual pattern of limb lesions associated with hanging. Two hundred and seven cases of suicidal hanging were retrospectively reviewed and compared to 45 homicidal nonhanging strangulation victims. Bruises incidence was significantly lower in hanging victims (19.8%) compared to homicidal strangulation victims (55.6%). Bruises were more commonly encountered in restraint areas such as closets and staircases (56.3% and 66.7%, respectively) than in more open settings such as barn, bridge, fence, and park. Limb bruises on hanging victims were generally located on the posterior upper limb or the anterior lower limbs, whereas strangulation victims did not display this preferential bruises concentration. Possible suspicion criteria for limb bruises distribution are discussed, in relation to physiopathology of human asphyxia by hanging.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".