MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116754697 · doi:10.1136/jcp.2007.048330

Granulomatous reaction to injectable hyaluronic acid (Restylane) diagnosed by fine needle biopsy

2007· article· en· W2116754697 on OpenAlexaff
Mubarak Al‐Shraim, Mohammad Jaragh, William R. Geddie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyaluronic acidBiopsyMedicineDermatologyPathologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hyaluronic acid (HA) derivative Restylane is now the most common injectable soft tissue filler used for facial wrinkle augmentation. Although it is generally well tolerated and absorbed within months, nodule formation at the injection site has been documented. A 62-year-old woman with a history of carcinoma of the breast six years previously was referred to a fine needle aspiration (FNA) clinic for biopsy of a subcutaneous facial nodule. On palpating the nodule six weeks prior to presentation she was referred for ultrasound examination; findings were reported as being consistent with a lymph node, raising concern of possible metastatic carcinoma of the breast. Serendipitously the same ultrasound examination led to discovery of a thyroid nodule that was aspirated and found to be papillary carcinoma, broadening the differential diagnosis of the facial nodule to metastatic thyroid carcinoma. On physical examination the lesion was a 1 cm subcutaneous nodule overlying the lower third of the mandible, a location felt to be consistent with a slightly “high” submental node. However, the nodule had irregular contours on palpation, and although it could be moved over the underlying bone, seemed to be fixed to the overlying skin. No cellular material was obtained by initial sampling with a 27G needle. After instillation of local anaesthetic, two samples were taken with a …

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207