MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292794600 · doi:10.1186/s41935-022-00295-1

Pediatric push pin aspiration: clinical, radiologic, and pathologic correlation — case report

2022· article· en· W4292794600 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler Bruce Malcolm Hickey, Rohit Zachariah Mathews, Michael J. Pickup

Bibliographic record

VenueEgyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicForeign Body Medical Cases
Canadian institutionsAdvantage Forensics (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAutopsyForeign body aspirationPresentation (obstetrics)Foreign bodyIntubationLarynxGeneral surgeryRadiologyForensic pathologyCause of deathSurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Aspiration of foreign bodies is not uncommon in the pediatric setting, and the consideration and recognition of an aspiration event are vital to prompt management. Pointed and sharp-edged foreign bodies have the potential to lodge in the airway and increase the difficulty of identification and removal. Here, we describe a fatal aspiration of a push pin that was unrecognized prior to death. Methods Review of police and medical records was completed prior to postmortem CT imaging and full pediatric autopsy with high resolution photography. Case presentation A 15-month-old boy was playing at home when he acutely vomited and then became unresponsive. Paramedic and hospital physicians performed pediatric CPR protocols, including intubation, without success. Postmortem radiographic imaging revealed a metallic foreign body at the level of the larynx. Autopsy demonstrated a push pin fully occluding the trachea at the level of the vocal cords. Conclusions The diagnosis of aspirated FBs may be elusive, and clinicians and autopsy pathologists ought to be mindful that children with FBs may have atypical presentations. Use of postmortem radiologic imaging can assist in the diagnosis and allow for a targeted autopsy approach to best visualize the offending foreign body.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEgyptian Journal of Forensic SciencesSame topicForeign Body Medical CasesFrench-language works237,207