MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416508104 · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2025.107807

Fracture patterns in suspected non-accidental injury across neurodevelopmental milestones: A systematic review and evidence-informed plausibility framework

2025· article· en· W4416508104 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniela Alessia Marletta, Gabriele Giuca, Danilo Leonetti, Federico Chiodini, Maurizio De Pellegrin, Nicola Guindani

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Abuse & Neglect · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Abuse and Related Trauma
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoison controlInjury preventionMultidisciplinary approachChild abuseHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionOccupational safety and health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Determining whether a pediatric fracture is congruent with the reported mechanism is challenging even with age-based guidance. We synthesize fracture evidence by neurodevelopmental milestones to organize plausibility judgments that augment, not replace, multidisciplinary abuse evaluations. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize evidence linking fracture patterns to developmental milestones in children ≤36 months evaluated for suspected non-accidental injury (NAI) and to propose a milestone-anchored, evidence-informed plausibility framework. METHODS: Following PRISMA 2020, we searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus from inception to 19 August 2025. Two reviewers independently screened/extracted data and assessed risk of bias (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort/case-control). PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251120765. Eligibility required data linking fracture type/location to age or explicit motor milestones (e.g., pre-rolling, crawling and walking). Quantitative synthesis was restricted to within-cohort strata: we calculated stratum-specific odds ratios, a Mantel-Haenszel within-cohort stratified pooled estimate across long-bone strata and (where informative) Bayesian Beta-Binomial posterior summaries; cross-cohort pooling was avoided because of cohort overlap and heterogeneous abuse determination. RESULTS: Across primary studies, non-ambulatory infants with long-bone (diaphyseal) fractures had markedly higher odds of abuse than ambulatory toddlers (within-cohort pooled OR 15.12, 95 % CI 2.88-79.36). Infants <12 months with rib fractures had abuse prevalences 67-82 % when motor-vehicle crashes and bone disease were included and ~91 % when excluded; rib fracture location was not independently associated with abuse likelihood. Classic metaphyseal lesions (CMLs) are highly suggestive, though not pathognomonic, of abuse in non-ambulatory infants. In one cohort, multiple fractures were present in 84 % (16/19) of children reported as suspected abuse. Collectively, findings support a milestone-aware approach to plausibility. CONCLUSIONS: Fracture patterns correlate with developmental capabilities. Organized by milestones, these data inform, but do not determine, abuse evaluations and should be integrated with history, examination, guideline-concordant imaging, differential for bone fragility when indicated and multidisciplinary assessment.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.310
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.310
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.012
Bibliometrics0.0200.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild Abuse & NeglectSame topicChild Abuse and Related TraumaFrench-language works237,207