Misdiagnosis of a primary vaginal stone leading to a suspicion of sexual assault in a heavily disabled woman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 26-year-old heavily disabled woman was admitted through the emergency department after presenting signs of respiratory distress. A pear-shaped object present in the vagina was discovered unexpectedly on a full-body CT-scan. Sexual assault was suspected and the case was subsequently reported to the authorities. The office of the forensic medical examiner was notified to further investigate the case. The vaginal object of unknown origin was sent to the pathology department, where it was identified as being a primary vaginal stone and the hypothesis of a sexual assault could be excluded. The aim of this case report is to raise awareness amongst clinicians and forensic medical examiners about the existence of vaginal stones, especially in female patients suffering from disabilities, incontinence and recurrent infections of the pelvic area. The presence of a foreign body can be suspicious of sexual assault in certain settings, but physicians as well as medical examiners need to be careful while interpreting lesions in order to protect patients from unnecessary investigations that can be traumatic such as sexual assault kits.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".