Imaging Findings in Elder Abuse: A Role for Radiologists in Detection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Emergency department assessment represents a critical but often missed opportunity to identify elder abuse, which is common and has serious consequences. Among emergency care providers, diagnostic radiologists are optimally positioned to raise suspicion for mistreatment when reviewing imaging of geriatric injury victims. However, little literature exists describing relevant injury patterns, and most radiologists currently receive neither formal nor informal training in elder abuse identification. METHODS: We present 2 cases to begin characterisation of the radiographic findings in elder abuse. RESULTS: Findings from these cases demonstrate similarities to suspicious findings in child abuse including high-energy fractures that are inconsistent with reported mechanisms and the coexistence of acute and chronic injuries. Specific injuries uncommon to accidental injury are also noted, including a distal ulnar diaphyseal fracture. CONCLUSIONS: We hope to raise awareness of elder abuse among diagnostic radiologists to encourage future large-scale research, increased focus on chronic osseous findings, and the addition of elder abuse to differential diagnoses.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it