MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002706316 · doi:10.2310/7750.2010.09068

Pyogenic Granuloma of the Foot with Satellitosis: A Role for Conservative Management

2011· review· en· W2002706316 on OpenAlexaff
Janice Bacher, Dalal Assaad, David N. Adam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Malformations and Hemangiomas
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePyogenic granulomaConservative managementObservational studyConservative treatmentDifferential diagnosisDermatologyLesionFoot (prosody)SurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pyogenic granuloma (PG) with satellitosis is a rare phenomenon that typically occurs in children and teenagers. It can be seen after excision or trauma to the original lesion. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to review an atypical case of PG with satellitosis and to highlight a conservative approach to management. METHODS: This article includes a case report of a 48-year-old woman developing PG with satellitosis in her right foot and includes a review of the literature. RESULTS: There are few cases of PG with satellitosis in the literature. Our patient differs from most given her age and the location of the lesions. She was managed differently with a conservative observational approach, and, over time, her symptoms abated. CONCLUSION: PG with satellitosis can occur in varying patient populations with varying presentations. Although several treatment options exist, managing patients conservatively should be considered an approach to management. Early investigations should be conducted to rule out more sinister items in the differential diagnosis.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicVascular Malformations and HemangiomasFrench-language works237,207