MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553793914 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000237

The Scourge of the Spurge Family—An Imitator of Rhus Dermatitis

2016· review· en· W2553793914 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kimberly A. Huerth, Jason E. Hawkes, Laurence J. Meyer, D. Powell

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioactive Natural Diterpenoids Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuphorbiaceaeEuphorbiaMedicinePresentation (obstetrics)DermatologyBotanyBiologyTraditional medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Euphorbiaceae family (commonly known as "spurge") is a large, diverse, and widely distributed family of plants that encompass around 300 genera and more than 8000 species. Their attractiveness and hearty nature have made them popular for both indoor ornamentation and outdoor landscaping. Despite their ubiquity, the potential to cause irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) is often overlooked in favor of more notorious causes of phytodermatitis, namely, Toxicodendron species and nettles. We examined case reports spanning 40 years and discovered that spurge-induced ICD tends to befall children and middle-aged adults who unwittingly encounter the plant through play or horticulture, respectively. Clinical presentation is pleomorphic. Erythema, edema, burning, vesicles, and pruritus of acute onset and rapid resolution are frequently observed. We present a classic case of ICD in a 12-year-old girl after exposure to Euphorbia myrsinites and review the literature on phytodermatitis caused by members of the Euphorbiaceae family.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicBioactive Natural Diterpenoids ResearchFrench-language works237,207