MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2918446580 · doi:10.1007/s00247-018-04340-x

Joint European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) and International Society for Forensic Radiology and Imaging (ISFRI) guidelines: paediatric postmortem computed tomography imaging protocol

2019· article· en· W2918446580 on OpenAlexaff
Susan C. Shelmerdine, Chandra Y. Gerrard, Padma Rao, Matthew Lynch, J. Kroll, D. Martin, Elka Miller, Laura Filograna, Rosa Maria Martinez, Odey Ukpo, Barry Daly, Hideki Hyodoh, Karl Johnson, Andrew Watt, Ajay Taranath, Scott M. Brown, David Perry, Lene Warner Thorup Boel, Aleksandra Borowska-Solonynko, Rick R. van Rijn, Willemijn M. Klein, Elspeth Whitby, Owen J. Arthurs

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Radiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersRoyal College of RadiologistsMedical Research CouncilUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineNeuroradiologyRadiologyProtocol (science)Medical physicsComputed tomographyMedical imagingInterventional radiologyPathologyNeurology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postmortem CT for investigating childhood deaths is increasingly utilised as a noninvasive adjunct or alternative to standard autopsy; however there are no standardised published imaging protocols. This article describes a standardised imaging protocol that has been developed based on current practices of international postmortem imaging practitioners and experts. This recommendation is expected to be useful for postmortem imaging centres wishing to update their existing practices and for those starting paediatric postmortem CT as a new service.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.010

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations44
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric RadiologySame topicAutopsy Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207