Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) became a named entity in 1969 and the term has been used to certify sudden unexpected infant deaths meeting certain demographic, epidemiologic, and pathologic criteria. Since it is a diagnosis of exclusion, there is inherent imprecision, and this has led the National Association of Medical Examiners to recommend that these deaths now be classified as "undetermined." This historical review article briefly analyzes anecdotal instances of SIDS described centuries ago as overlying, smothering, infanticide, and suffocation by bedclothes followed by a more detailed review of "thymic" causes (i.e., thymic asthma and status thymicolymphaticus) popular in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Before the 1950s, such cases were also often categorized as accidental mechanical suffocation. In the 1940s and 1950s, forensic studies on infants dying unexpectedly revealed a typical pattern of autopsy findings strongly suggestive of natural causation and, after 1969, cases meeting the appropriate criteria were usually categorized as SIDS, a term embraced by the public and by advocacy groups. Research conducted after the 1960s identified important risk factors and generated many theories related to pathogenesis, such as prolonged sleep apnea. The incidence of SIDS deaths decreased sharply in the early 1990s after implementing public awareness programs addressing risk factors such as prone sleeping position and exposure to smoking. Deletion of cases in which death scene investigation suggested asphyxiation and cases where molecular autopsies revealed metabolic diseases further decreased the incidence. This historical essay lays the foundation for debate on the future of the SIDS entity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".