Intralesional <i>Candida</i> Antigen for Common Warts in People with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intralesional Candida antigen has been used as immunotherapy to treat refractory warts in the immunocompetent pediatric and adult populations but has not been reported in individuals with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). PURPOSE: To examine if Candida antigen resulted in clearance of medically refractory, long-standing common warts in a series of HIV patients. METHOD: At a hospital-based, adult, outpatient dermatology clinic, seven patients with HIV with common warts of the hands and feet were treated with intralesional Candida antigen. The warts had been resistant to standard patient- and physician-applied modalities. RESULTS: Clearance was achieved in three of seven patients, whereas four of seven did not respond due to a lack of effectiveness or an inability to tolerate treatment. Adverse events included injection-site redness, pruritus, and pain. CONCLUSION: This is the first reported case series using Candida antigen for warts in individuals with HIV. The use of Candida antigen represents a simple and novel approach to the management of treatment-refractory warts in those with HIV. This case series provides a foundation for future larger, randomized trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".