MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cutaneous poisoning syndromes in children: a review

2006· review· en· W2007479971 on OpenAlexaff
Cindy Jao-Tan, Elena Pope

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Pediatrics · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePresentation (obstetrics)Intensive care medicineDiseasePopulationPediatricsEnvironmental healthPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this article is to review cutaneous poisoning syndromes in the pediatric population and to describe the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges in the management of these conditions. RECENT FINDINGS: In recent years, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Center for Disease Control have been continuously monitoring the lowest blood levels of numerous elements and nutrients associated with the slightest degree of toxicity. This review will focus on the clinical presentation, recognition and management of poisoning with cutaneous manifestations such as carotenoderma, mercury, dioxin and arsenic poisoning. SUMMARY: Despite numerous efforts of federal and local government agencies to decrease poisoning incidents among consumers, sporadic cases of cutaneous poisoning still arise. Pediatricians should be familiar with the clinical presentation of various toxic syndromes and, more importantly, be able to teach prevention during regular medical encounters.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in PediatricsSame topicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and EffectsFrench-language works237,207