MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Axonal Injury in Young Pediatric Head Trauma: A Comparison Study of β-amyloid Precursor Protein (β-APP) Immunohistochemical Staining in Traumatic and Nontraumatic Deaths*

2011· article· en· W2098363829 on OpenAlexaff
Michael W. Johnson, Lisa Stoll, Ana Rubio, Juan C. Troncoso, Olga Pletniková, David R. Fowler, Ling Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Abuse and Related Trauma
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
FundersNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineImmunohistochemistryHead traumaForensic pathologyPathologyStainingSudden infant death syndromeTraumatic brain injuryHead injuryPediatricsAutopsySurgeryPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the independent utility of β-amyloid precursor protein (β-APP) immunohistochemical staining as evidence of brain trauma in the deaths of young children. Blinded reviewers retrospectively reviewed immunostained brain tissues from homicidal deaths, age-matched control cases without evidence of trauma, as well as cases of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The reviewers correctly identified five of the seven cases with documented inflicted head trauma. However, one of seven age-matched control cases and one of 10 SIDS/sudden unexplained death in infancy (SUDI) cases demonstrated staining patterns similar to those seen in cases of inflicted trauma. We discuss these cases and the circumstances surrounding them with the intent to explain the difficulties associated with immunohistological interpretation of axonal injury. Although the utility of β-APP is quite powerful if not confounded by global hypoxic-ischemic injury, ultimately, β-APP studies should be only one piece of information in the determination of cause and manner of death.

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)0.000
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations26
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicChild Abuse and Related TraumaFrench-language works237,207