MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606523603 · doi:10.23907/2011.021

Infant Heart Dissection in a Forensic Context: Babies are Not Just Small Adults

2011· article· en· W2606523603 on OpenAlexaff
Evan W. Matshes, Cynthia Trevenen

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Forensic Pathology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineForensic pathologyDissection (medical)Context (archaeology)Broad spectrumPediatricsAutopsyIntensive care medicinePathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical examiners who investigate infant deaths are required to consider a large number of natural and non-natural causes due to the broad differential diagnosis of unexpected infant death. Among the myriad of causes are those related to disorders in structure and function of the cardiovascular system. Adult hearts are routinely and efficiently evaluated by medical examiners because of the large anatomic structures and limited spectrum of commonly encountered diseases. Infant deaths are comparatively rare. Although infant hearts may be evaluated with similar efficiency, the pathologist must first have a detailed knowledge of developmental cardiovascular anatomy and of the subtleties of a broad spectrum of infantile cardiovascular pathology. Furthermore, the pathologist must be aware of additional details to be observed and documented in infant cardiac studies, and of the dissection techniques that facilitate acquisition of that data. Rote dissection of an infant heart as if it were an adult heart may lead to overlooked malformations and diseases that may have been the underlying cause of death. This brief review paper covers the fundamentals of pediatric cardiovascular anatomy and dissection techniques as they apply to the practice of pediatric forensic pathology.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Forensic PathologySame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207