MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115020729 · doi:10.2310/7750.2008.07027

Cutaneous Myiasis from Panama, South America: Case Report and Review

2008· review· en· W2115020729 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia T. Ting, Benjamin Barankin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Canadian institutionsGuenther Dermatology Research CentreUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyiasisMedicineInfestationMaggotDermatologyErythemaVeterinary medicineLarvaBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Myiasis is a cutaneous infestation with larvae of Diptera, the two-winged arthropod order. Eggs and/or larvae are transmitted directly from the environment or via arthropod vectors. Larvae are able to burrow into the dermis of intact skin or external body orifices. Three clinical variants of myiasis are furuncular, migratory (creeping), and infestation of wounds. METHODS: A 35-year-old male presented with a 1-month history of worsening furuncles on the left knee and posterior thigh following his return from Panama, South America. Clinical examination revealed tender 6 cm and 2 cm erythematous to violaceous furuncles with surrounding desquamation and central puncta draining serosanguinous fluid. Five-millimeter punch biopsies and tissue swabs were performed. RESULTS: All larvae were of the Dermatobia hominis species. The patient was empirically treated with cephalexin and ciprofloxacin for secondary bacterial cellulitis. Tissue swabs later cultured group B streptococcus. A tetanus booster was recommended. CONCLUSION: This case report describes a relatively rare cutaneous infestation with D. hominis, a Central and South American endemic larva of the human botfly. Increasing trends toward immigration and global travel to tropical and subtropic areas will likely increase the frequency of encounters with such parasitic cutaneous infestations in North American outpatient dermatology clinics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.291
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicForensic Entomology and Diptera StudiesFrench-language works237,207