MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2938240288 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxz034

Microarray results as an indicator of sexual abuse

2019· article· en· W2938240288 on OpenAlexaff
Vanessa Russell, Sarah M. Nikkel, Michelle Ward

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaAgricultural Research Institute of OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)MicroarraySexual abuseConsanguinityIdentification (biology)Microarray analysis techniquesDevelopmental psychologyChild sexual abusePsychologyMedicineGeneticsPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsBiologyMedical emergencyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This case report illustrates the unexpected identification of intrafamilial sexual abuse of a young mother through genetic testing of her child. The child's genome was found to have a relatively common chromosomal condition with congruent clinical manifestations, but the microarray also suggested a close biological relationship between the parents because of a high degree of homozygosity. This prompted a child protection investigation as the mother had been a minor at the time of conception, and intrafamilial sexual abuse was confirmed. Both the intended and unintended results of microarray should be considered with respect to the health and social context of the child and their biological parents. This becomes particularly important for young mothers and raises protection concerns when significant amounts of homozygosity (consanguinity) are detected.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicChild Abuse and Trauma→French-language works237,207→