Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fixed drug eruptions (FDEs) are a unique type of drug allergy in which skin lesions recur in the same location after each ingestion of the offending agent. More than 100 drugs have been implicated in causing FDEs. More recently, herbal medications and food additives have been implicated. Propolis is an important contact allergen, but has not previously been reported to cause FDE. We present the case of a patient with a 1-year history of a recurrent lesion on the shaft of his penis. He tested strongly positive to propolis and had been using a herbal supplement. A trial off this supplement was initiated, and his penile lesion cleared. The patient then rechallenged himself with his powder and developed the same reaction, biopsy-proven to be consistent with FDE. This case illustrates the utility of systemic (rechallenge) and topical (patch-testing) testing to identify the causative agent. It is interesting to note that our patient developed a reaction at the site of the patch test for propolis itself, rather than at the former reaction site. Our patient also illustrates the necessity of considering new causes for FDE when typical lesions are present.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".