A new role for imaging in the diagnosis of physical elder abuse: results of a qualitative study with radiologists and frontline providers
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
Pediatric radiologists play a key role in the detection of child abuse through the identification of characteristic injury patterns. Emergency radiologists have the potential to play an equally important role in the detection of elder physical abuse; however, they currently play little to no part in this effort. We examine the reasons behind this limited role, and potential strategies to expand it, by interviewing attending faculty from Emergency Radiology, Geriatrics, Emergency Medicine, Pediatric Radiology, and Pediatrics. Our interviews revealed that radiologists' contribution to elder abuse detection is currently limited by gaps in training, gaps in knowledge about imaging correlates, and gaps in inter-team clinical communication. Specifically, radiographic interpretation of elder trauma is severely restricted by lack of communication between frontline providers and radiologists about patients' injury mechanism and functional status. Improving this communication and re-conceptualizing ED workflow is critical to expanding and optimizing radiologists' role in elder abuse detection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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