ArticleBiology2023
Blows or Falls? Distinction by Random Forest Classification.
Article in Biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Blunt force vs. fall-induced head trauma: a systematic review and methodological framework.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we propose a classification method between falls and blows using random forests. In total, 400 anonymized patients presenting with fractures from falls or blows aged between 20 and 49 years old were used. There were 549 types of fractures for 57 bones and 12 anatomical regions observed. We first tested various models according to the sensibility of random forest parameters and their effects on model accuracies. The best model was based on the binary coding of 12 anatomical regions or 28 bones with or without baseline (age and sex). Our method achieved the highest accuracy rate of 83% in the distinction between falls and blows. Our findings pave the way for applications to help forensic experts and archaeologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.