MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011251903 · doi:10.1177/0846537120909503

Postmortem CT in Trauma: An Overview

2020· review· en· W3011251903 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutopsy Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAutopsyRadiologyComputed tomographyForensic pathologyMedical physicsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As forensic radiology sees an exponential gain in popularity, postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) is increasingly being used in the appropriate setting, either as preautopsy guidance or as part of complementary virtual autopsy protocol. Many articles have expounded the value it adds to forensic pathology in the general setting and the appropriate technical parameters to be used for optimum benefit. We aim to put forth a concise review on the role of PMCT specifically in trauma and the pitfalls to be aware of. Reviews have shown that presumed cause of death in trauma have been proven by autopsy to be wrong in about 30% cases. Radiology applied to postmortem investigation in unnatural deaths and more specifically in trauma shares many semiotic features with emergency radiology. Therefore, in the near future, emergency radiologists might be required to integrate this type of imaging in their regular practice. Although the predominant drawbacks are time-dependent, PMCT also has some difficulty in differentiating antemortem and postmortem events. However, in many such scenarios, PMCT and autopsy play a complementary role in arriving at conclusions, and we believe understanding the benefits and role in trauma is imperative considering the expanding usage of PMCT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.290 · 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