MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605759926 · doi:10.23907/2014.066

Cervical Ganglia and Nerve Root Injury: Evidence for Respiratory Arrest as Initiating Injury in Pediatric Head Trauma

2014· article· en· W2605759926 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Ann Sens, Sarah Meyers, Mark Koponen, Arne H. Graff, Ryan D. Reynolds, Waldemar G. Storm

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Forensic Pathology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Abuse and Related Trauma
Canadian institutionsOffice of the Chief Medical Examiner
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespiratory arrestSubarachnoid hemorrhageHead injuryAutopsyHead traumaSurgeryAnesthesiaPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cervical ganglia and nerve root injury with resultant paralysis of the phrenic nerve is proposed as a mechanism of injury in “shaken baby syndrome” or nonaccidental head injury of children. We report autopsy findings of a 22-month-old girl in which cervical ganglia and nerve hemorrhage was present along with the triad of encephalopathy, bilateral retinal hemorrhage, and bilateral subdural, intradural, and subarachnoid hemorrhages. Clear evidence of near immediate respiratory arrest was documented from first responder medical reports, juvenile witness statements, and perpetrator confession. The narrowing of time of injury from the anatomic findings at autopsy allowed investigative efforts to focus on a single individual and cleared several other adults with access to the child. Additional technical notes based on our experience are provided for users of cervical neck dissection. Hemorrhage in the tissues surrounding the vertebral artery raises a potential additional injury site in cases of neck 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 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)0.003
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.353
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Forensic PathologySame topicChild Abuse and Related TraumaFrench-language works237,207