MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970617231 · doi:10.2310/7750.2014.13196

Fatal Case of Vulvar Pyoderma Gangrenosum with Pulmonary Involvement: Case Presentation and Literature Review

2014· review· en· W1970617231 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua M. Mercer, Paul Kuzel, Muhammad N. Mahmood, Alain Brassard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePyoderma gangrenosumDermatologyPresentation (obstetrics)Rare diseaseCase presentationSurgeryDiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: We report a case of a 61-year-old woman with locally destructive vulvar pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) with pulmonary involvement who was refractory to numerous systemic therapies and developed complications resulting in her demise. OBJECTIVE: To report a rare case of treatment-resistant vulvar PG with pulmonary involvement that proved to be fatal. METHODS: PubMed was used to search for other reports that discuss PG, or more specifically perigenital PG, with pulmonary involvement. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: A thorough review of the literature revealed 33 cases of PG with pulmonary involvement, with only 4 involving the perigenital region. We report the second case of a female with vulvar PG and pulmonary involvement. In contrast to the first case described, our patient did not respond to systemic therapy, and, ultimately, her disease was fatal. It is hoped that with continued documentation of this rare and potentially lethal presentation of PG, physicians will determine more effective treatments.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicAutoimmune and Inflammatory DisordersFrench-language works237,207