MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791220237 · doi:10.1111/1556-4029.13764

A Case of Self‐Enucleation in an Incarcerated Patient: Case Report and Review of Literature

2018· review· en· W2791220237 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren Evoy Davis, Samidha Tripathi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersUniversity of Arkansas for Medical SciencesUniversity of Arkansas
KeywordsEnucleationPresentation (obstetrics)MedicinePsychopathologyHarmPsychiatryPsychologySurgerySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-enucleation is a severe form of self-injurious behavior which presents as an ophthalmologic and psychiatric emergency. It is usually known to occur with untreated psychosis, however, there have been reports of self-enucleation across various psychopathologies. We review a case documenting self-enucleation in the forensic setting in a patient with an unusual presentation and cluster of psychotic symptoms. Literature was reviewed using PubMed/Medline databases with key terms: "forensic science," "forensic psychiatry," "auto-enucleation," "self-enucleation," "Oedipism," "self-harm." This case is unique as it offers an alternative presentation to those most commonly depicted in current literature, helps highlight the sparsity of literature depicting self-enucleation in the forensic setting, and stimulates discussion around various potential differential diagnoses, management strategies and complications of self-enucleation within the forensic setting. It is prudent to emphasize need for aggressive and collaborative treatment for the forensic population regardless of psychopathology, presentation, or propensity for secondary gain.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.325 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207