The Pseudomonas Hot-Foot Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Between March and May 1998, there was an outbreak of a clinically distinct skin eruption on the soles of the feet of children who used a community wading pool. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 40 children in whom this syndrome developed between March and May 1998. We treated 17 children and advised the attending physicians on the care of the other 23. Follow-up data were obtained for up to one year. RESULTS: Exquisitely painful erythematous plantar nodules developed in 40 children (age, 2 to 15 years) within 40 hours after they had used a wading pool whose floor was coated with abrasive grit. Culture of the plantar pustules from one child yielded Pseudomonas aeruginosa with a pattern on pulsed-field gel electrophoresis that was identical to that of a strain of P. aeruginosa cultured from the pool water. A skin-biopsy specimen from this patient showed a perivascular and perieccrine neutrophilic infiltrate, and a specimen from another patient showed a dermal microabscess. Thirty-seven patients were treated symptomatically; three others were treated with cephalexin. All patients recovered within 14 days, but three children had recurrences of the painful plantar nodules within 24 hours after using the pool again. Folliculitis developed in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: The "pseudomonas hot-foot syndrome" is characterized by the acute onset in children of exquisitely tender plantar nodules and a benign, self-limited course. This community outbreak developed after exposure to pool water containing high concentrations of P. aeruginosa.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".