A Proposed Scheme for Classifying Pediatric Rib Head Fractures Using Case Examples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric rib head fractures are typically described as "posterior" or "costovertebral," terms lacking specificity. To resolve this issue, a scheme was developed to describe the location of rib head fractures observed in a pediatric forensic population. The scheme uses three anatomical landmarks, terminus (tip), tubercle, and costovertebral articular surface to divide the rib head into two subregions, costovertebral and costotransverse. Examples of five cases of infants with rib head fractures are presented using this scheme. Forty-eight rib head fractures were observed in these infants with the following frequencies: 56% (three infants) at the terminus; 21% (three infants) in the costovertebral subregion; 21% (one infant) at the costovertebral articular facet; and 2% (one infant) in the costotransverse subregion. Due to the small number of cases assessed, statistical analyses could not be performed; however, the data demonstrate the variation in distribution of pediatric rib head fractures.
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".