MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1495795051 · doi:10.1177/229255030701500406

Management of fulminant dissecting cellulitis of the scalp in the pediatric population: Case report and literature review

2007· article· en· W1495795051 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jugpal S. Arneja, Christopher Vashi, Eti Gursel, Joseph L. Lelli

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHidradenitis Suppurativa and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScalpFulminantSurgerySkin graftingRefractory (planetary science)EtiologyDermatologyCellulitisPopulationPresentation (obstetrics)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A case of fulminant dissecting cellulitis of the scalp in a fifteen-year-old African American male is reported. The presentation was refractory to standard medical treatment such that treatment required radical subgaleal excision of the entire hair-bearing scalp. Reconstruction was in the form of split-thickness skin grafting at the level of the pericranium following several days of vacuum-assisted closure dressing to promote an acceptable wound bed for skin grafting and to ensure appropriate clearance of infection. Numerous nonsurgical modalities have been described for the treatment of dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, with surgical intervention reserved for patients refractory to medical treatment. The present paper reports a fulminant form of the disease in an atypical age of presentation, adolescence. The pathophysiology, etiology, natural history, complications and treatment options for dissecting cellulitis of the scalp are reviewed, and the authors suggest this method of treatment to be efficacious for severe presentations refractory to medical therapy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicHidradenitis Suppurativa and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207