MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083612593 · doi:10.1097/paf.0b013e318173f067

Evaluation of Aortic Injury in Driver Fatalities Occurring in Motor Vehicle Accidents in the State of Maryland for 2003 and 2004

2008· article· en· W2083612593 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Ripple, Jami R. Grant, Joan Mealey, David R. Fowler

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & Pathology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAutopsyDemographicsExtant taxonInjury preventionPoison controlEpidemiologyCause of deathMortality rateSurgeryEmergency medicineInternal medicineDemographyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incorporating epidemiological and pathologic factors, a retrospective analysis of aortic injury and driving fatalities was conducted. To better understand the mechanism of injury, data were compiled for decedent demographics, autopsy and toxicology findings, and accident circumstances, with emphasis on directional impact. Review of the autopsy files of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in the State of Maryland in 2003 and 2004, identified 150 cases of aortic injury recorded in 537 autopsied drivers. Aortic lacerations occurred in 96% of the cases with aortic injury, two thirds of which were complete or near complete transections. A large percentage of cases involved a side impact collision. Consistent with extant research on frontal and lateral impacts, the majority of aortic injuries occurred at the ligamentum arteriosum. Also, the mechanism of aortic injury seems to be similar for side and frontal impact collisions, involving a combination of rapid deceleration forces along with chest and/or upper abdominal compression. This study emphasizes the importance of side impact collisions as a cause of aortic injury. Aortic lacerations have a high mortality rate and better motor vehicle design may prevent this type of 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 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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Forensic Medicine & PathologySame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207