MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885857885 · doi:10.1159/000491924

Spontaneous Keloids: A Literature Review

2018· review· en· W2885857885 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulhadi Jfri, Ali Alajmi

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDermatologyMedicineKeloid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Keloids are benign fibroproliferative tumors that extend beyond the original wound. Spontaneous keloids are those that result without a significant history of trauma. There are multiple reported cases in the literature. OBJECTIVE: This article provides a summary and review of the cases that have been reported with spontaneous keloids and organizes them according to their associated medical conditions. METHODS: A literature review was conducted using PubMed and MEDLINE that included all English published cases and case series from May 1955 to February 2018. RESULTS: Spontaneous keloids have been reported mainly in association with syndromes such as Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome, Dubowitz syndrome, Noonan syndrome, Goeminne syndrome, Bethlem myopathy, conjunctivocorneal dystrophy, X-linked recessive polyfibromatosis and a novel X-linked syndrome with flamin A mutation. Furthermore, spontaneous keloids were reported in atopic patients and a couple of patients who are medically healthy. CONCLUSION: Spontaneous keloids are diagnosed clinically based on the patient's history, and it is challenging to confirm since they might be triggered by minimal injury or inflammation especially if it is a single lesion. Reported syndromes indicate a genetic possibility in the pathogenesis of spontaneous keloids.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.353 · 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.

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

Citations42
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologySame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207