↓ Skip to main content

Homicide or suicide? Xylophagia: a possible explanation for extraordinary autopsy findings

Overview of attention for article published in Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Homicide or suicide? Xylophagia: a possible explanation for extraordinary autopsy findings
Published in
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12024-014-9554-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anke Klein, Carolin Schröder, Axel Heinemann, Klaus Püschel

Abstract

Determining the cause of death and differentiating self-inflicted injuries from non-self-inflicted injuries is a primary goal in legal medicine. Especially with unidentified decedents, autopsy findings alone are often not sufficient; there is no knowledge of pre-existing conditions and only circumstantial evidence is available from the scene of death. In our case, radiological, histological, and toxicological examinations provided an explanatory model for extraordinary autopsy findings consistent with pica, a rare eating disorder. In cases of pica, variable and potentially lethal complications emerge, depending on the type and amount of material ingested. Our case is of an apparently uncontrolled intake of wooden objects (xylophagia). The resulting mechanical damage to the gastrointestinal tract and subsequent soft tissue damage supports that this behavioral disorder is not only of medical concern, but also identifies it as a mental disease with medico-legal relevance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Professor 3 11%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 11 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 29%
Psychology 4 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 12 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,284,489
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#64
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,209
of 231,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,415 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.