MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066295854 · doi:10.1097/paf.0b013e3181edee5b

Ocular Findings in Raised Intracranial Pressure

2010· article· en· W2066295854 on OpenAlexaff
Othon J. Mena, Ian M. Paul, R. Ross Reichard

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Abuse and Related Trauma
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubarachnoid hemorrhageAutopsyIntracranial pressureVitreous hemorrhageIntraventricular hemorrhageOptic nerveLumbar punctureSurgeryAneurysmSpinal cordOphthalmologyCerebrospinal fluidPathologyVitrectomyVisual acuity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the case of a 7-month-old female infant who was found crying and limp. She was transported to a hospital where a possible subarachnoid hemorrhage was diagnosed radiologically. Before further studies could be pursued, her condition worsened and she died. The autopsy demonstrated diffuse subarachnoid hemorrhage of the brain and along the spinal cord. The brain, spinal cord, and eyes were retained and examined postfixation. An aneurysm of the middle cerebral artery was identified. Examination of the eyes demonstrated bilateral optic nerve sheath hemorrhage and extensive retinal hemorrhages extending to the ora serrata. A rapid increase in intracranial pressure secondary to subarachnoid hemorrhage following rupture of an aneurysm can result in sequelae similar to those found in inflicted traumatic brain injury. In this case, the rise in intracranial pressure resulted in marked hemorrhage within the optic nerve sheaths as well as intra- and preretinal hemorrhages. Patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, or other causes of rapidly increased intracranial pressure, may develop ocular hemorrhage (Terson syndrome). This case illustrates the importance of ruling out natural disease before attributing the autopsy findings to trauma, as well as the importance of postmortem fixation of pediatric brains and eyes prior to examination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & PathologySame topicChild Abuse and Related TraumaFrench-language works237,207