MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167170661 · doi:10.1542/peds.105.4.e48

Cause and Clinical Characteristics of Rib Fractures in Infants

2000· article· en· W2167170661 on OpenAlexaffabout
Blake Bulloch, Charles J. Schubert, Patrick D. Brophy, Neil D. Johnson, Martin H. Reed, Robert A. Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenuePEDIATRICS · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Abuse and Related Trauma
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChild abuseAccidentalPediatricsOsteogenesis imperfectaSkeletal surveyPoison controlInjury preventionEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Rib fractures are uncommon in infancy and, when diagnosed, often raise the suspicion of child abuse. However, the prevalence of other causes of rib fractures has not been well defined. The purpose of this study was to determine the causes and clinical presentations of rib fractures in infants <12 months old. METHODS: Retrospectively, we identified all infants with rib fractures under 12 months old over a 3-year period using computerized databases at the Children's Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati, Ohio and at the Children's Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Data extracted from the individual patient charts included: age, sex, chief complaint, number and location of rib fractures, associated injuries, birth history, history of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and any evidence of bone dysplasia. After the chart review and a review of the radiographs by a pediatric radiologist, all fractures were determined to be attributable to one of the following causes: child abuse, birth injury, bone fragility, or accidental trauma. A determination of abuse was made when there were other injuries indicative of abuse, there was no clinical or radiographic evidence of bone fragility, there was a confession of abuse, when no reasonable history of trauma was provided, or when the history was not plausible to explain the rib fractures. Standard practice at these hospitals involves obtaining skeletal surveys on all children <2 years old when abuse is suspected. The child abuse team, which consists of physicians, nurses, and social workers, conducts these investigations and works closely with police in evaluating these children. RESULTS: Thirty-nine infants with rib fractures were identified. Thirty-two (82%) were caused by child abuse. Three (7. 7%) were attributable to accidental injuries, 1 (2.6%) was secondary to birth trauma, and 3 (7.7%) were attributable to bone fragility. All 3 infants with fractures from accidental injury had sustained notable trauma (a motor vehicle collision, a forceful direct blow, and a fall from a height). Of the 3 infants with fractures secondary to bone fragility, 1 infant had osteogenesis imperfecta, 1 infant had rickets, and 1 infant, who was born at 23 weeks' gestation, had fragile bones attributable to prematurity. CONCLUSIONS: Most rib fractures in infants are caused by child abuse. Although much less common, rib fractures can also occur after serious accidental injuries, birth trauma, or secondary to bone fragility. A thorough clinical and imaging evaluation is mandatory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations208
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePEDIATRICSSame topicChild Abuse and Related TraumaFrench-language works237,207