ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2025
Comparison of background characteristics and neuropathology findings between medico-legal autopsy cases with traumatic axonal injury, vascular axonal injury, or absence of axonal injury in β-amyloid precursor protein stain.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In forensic neuropathology, the β-amyloid precursor protein (β-APP) immunostain is used to diagnose axonal injury (AI). The two most common aetiologies are traumatic (TAI) and ischaemic (vascular; VAI). We aimed to identify background characteristics and neuropathology findings that are suggestive of TAI, VAI, or no AI in neuropathologically examined medico-legal autopsy cases. The dataset comprised 166 cases from Finland over the period 2016-2023. The diagnosis of AI was based on β-APP stain (TAI, VAI, or no AI). Data on background characteristics and neuropathology findings were collected from cause-of-death investigation documents. Prevalence ratios were calculated for each variable to enable comparisons between the AI categories. The sample were 71.7% males; median age was 41 years (range 0-96). There were 26 cases with TAI, 44 with VAI, and 96 with no AI. The variables that showed statistical significance and had at least two-fold prevalence among TAI cases compared to VAI cases were: a documented recent injury; and presence of any extracranial/cranial/intracranial injury (including subdural haemorrhage [SDH], subarachnoid haemorrhage [SAH], intracerebral/ventricular haemorrhage [ICVH], or contusion) in autopsy or neuropathology. Correspondingly, variables indicating TAI over no AI were: a documented recent injury; postinjury survival ≥ 24 h; and presence of any extracranial/cranial/intracranial injury (including SDH, SAH, ICVH, contusion), herniation, or infarction in autopsy or neuropathology. Postinjury survival < 30 min was identified as an indicator of no AI over TAI. Finally, variables indicating VAI over no AI were: postinjury survival ≥ 24 h; lack of external injury to the head; and presence of SDH, brain oedema, herniation, or infarction in autopsy or neuropathology. In conclusion, we report several differences in characteristics and findings between cases diagnosed with TAI, VAI, and no AI. Our findings may help estimate the likelihood and potential aetiology of AI based on background characteristics and other neuropathology findings.
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.