MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Atypical Mycobacterial Infection Following Blepharoplasty and Full-Face Skin Resurfacing With CO<sub>2</sub>Laser

2002· article· en· W1998098176 on OpenAlexaff
Jaggi Rao, Theodore Golden, Richard Fitzpatrick

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatologic Surgery · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryDebridement (dental)DermatologyComplicationPerioperativeAcneDermabrasion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With the popularity of laser skin resurfacing for the correction of photoaging and the improvement of acne scarring, it is important to note complications that may result from this procedure. Infections must be recognized and treated early, as some can result in permanent local destruction and systemic spread to other body sites. OBJECTIVE: To increase the awareness of an unusual infection that may result from laser resurfacing. METHODS: We report the case of a 52-year-old woman who presented with two symmetrical nodules 1 month after full-face skin resurfacing with CO2 laser. These were found to be abscesses caused by Mycobacterium fortuitum infection. RESULTS: The diagnosis was established following surgical debridement and subsequent culture grown from the exudate. Oral antibiotic treatment guided by organism sensitivity resulted in complete clearance of the infection with no recurrence or sequelae after 3 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: This case demonstrates that atypical mycobacterial infections may arise after laser resurfacing procedures, despite proper technique, sterile instrumentation, and appropriate perioperative medications and postoperative wound care. If diagnosed and treated early, this potentially disastrous complication can be cured with no permanent sequelae.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
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 head0.263
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations31
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologic SurgerySame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207