MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102654931 · doi:10.1001/archderm.143.12.1555

Long-term Follow-up of a Patient With Eruptive Melanocytic Nevi After Stevens-Johnson Syndrome

2007· review· en· W2102654931 on OpenAlexaff
Allison Gelfer, Jason K. Rivers

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Dermatology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsPacific Institute for the Mathematical Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDermatologyTerm (time)Melanocytic nevusNevusCongenital melanocytic nevusMelanomaAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Eruptive melanocytic nevi (MN) are a rare phenomenon characterized by the simultaneous, abrupt onset of hundreds of MN, often in a grouped distribution. There are few studies on this topic in the literature. We followed up a patient who developed eruptive MN 38 years ago after Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Herein we document this patient's progress and review the literature on this unusual phenomenon. OBSERVATIONS: For 38 years, the patient's lesions have remained stable, without signs of malignant degeneration. We discuss the possible etiology and natural history of this condition in 2 major patient populations: those with bullous disorders and those with systemic immunosuppression. CONCLUSIONS: We postulate that the etiology and natural course of eruptive MN may differ between the 2 main populations of patients at risk for eruptive MN, with MN arising after bullous disorders being more likely to remain benign compared with those in patients with ongoing immunosuppression. However, this hypothesis has yet to be proved, and it will require long-term surveillance of individuals who have developed eruptive MN to determine its merit.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of DermatologySame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207