Necrotizing Cutaneous Fungal Infection of the Breast in a Patient with Breast Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast fungal infections are rare in nonlactating women. The present report is the first to describe a necrotizing cutaneous breast fungal infection. A 50-year-old woman with a remote history of breast cancer and autologous tissue reconstruction presented with a progressive cutaneous necrotic infection one year after implant augmentation of the reconstruction. Multiple eschars developed on the left breast, and pathological examination of debrided tissue revealed numerous fungal hyphae invading the epidermis, dermis and adipose tissue of the breast. Fungal cultures yielded Bipolaris species. She was treated with voriconazole. Five months later, the patient presented with an eschar on her back, indicative of disseminated disease. Bipolaris species are dematiaceous fungi; cutaneous or disseminated infections with Bipolaris species have rarely been reported in immunocompetent patients. Unresectable or recurrent lesions should be treated with antifun-gals. Cutaneous necrotizing breast fungal infections should be considered in patients who do not respond to antibacterial therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".