Povidone‐Iodine–Induced Burn: Case Report and Review of the Literature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Burns are a rare but potentially serious complication of povidone-iodine use. This rare adverse drug reaction developed in a 38-year-old woman who underwent laparoscopic right ovarian cystectomy and endometrial ablation as a day procedure involving application of the topical antiseptic 10% povidone-iodine solution. Two days later, the patient was admitted to the hospital with burning, pain, itching, marked redness, and blistering extending from her midback to buttocks. A stain on her back also was evident. Partial-thickness chemical burn was diagnosed. Review of the literature yielded 13 other cases of povidone-iodine-induced burn. This underrecognized adverse effect of povidone-iodine application typically occurs when the povidone-iodine has not been allowed to dry or has been trapped under the body of a patient in a pooled dependent position. The burn is usually seen immediately after the procedure or on the next day, and typically heals with minimum scarring within 3-4 weeks with conservative treatment. The commonly postulated mechanism is a chemical burn due to irritation coupled with maceration, friction, and pressure. Given the widespread use of povidone-iodine and the potential for development of infection after a burn, clinicians need to be aware of this possible povidone-iodine-associated adverse drug reaction, and of preventive measures.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it