Wells syndrome secondary to influenza vaccination: A case report and review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vaccinations have been shown repeatedly to be extremely safe with low incidence of complications. Given the rarity, these adverse events, they must be reported and examined cautiously. This case report illustrates the first case of an adult presenting with Wells syndrome that developed soon after vaccination with the thiomersal, a common preservative, containing influenza vaccine. Wells syndrome, also known as eosinophilic cellulitis, is an uncommon dermatologic condition of unknown etiology. Lesions in patients with Wells syndrome (eosinophilic cellulitis) progress over a few days to become large indurated plaques with associated edema and erythema. Although the etiology of Wells syndrome remains unknown, certain precipitants have been described in the literature, including but not limited to parasitic infections, contact dermatitis, Churg-Strauss disease and various medications. This article describes a possible sensitivity to thiomersal, as well as describes other cases that have reported a similar sensitivity secondary to receiving thiomersal-containing vaccines.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".