MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2987544810

Clinical management of an adult with erythema infectiosum: a retrospective case report.

2019· article· en· W2987544810 on OpenAlexaff
David Gryfe, Calvin Wong

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatological and COVID-19 studies
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)Etobicoke School of the ArtsEtobicoke General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineErythemaDermatologyJoint painErythema InfectiosumManual therapyPrednisoneRashPhysical therapySurgeryPathologyAlternative medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis and typical management of erythema infectiosum and to illustrate the clinical management of an adult with erythema infectiosum. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 38-year-old male complaining of severe global pain, swelling, weakness and stiffness in his shoulders, elbows, knees, and fingers of seven weeks duration. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: The patient was treated with a combination of 1) pharmacological treatment of naprosyn, prednisone, methotrexate, hydroquinone and sulfasalazine, 2) conservative treatment consisting of spinal manipulation, peripheral joint mobilization, acupuncture and low-tech Qi Gong and Tai Chi exercises, and 3) an active physiotherapy program consisting of strengthening exercises, and stationary bike. The patient reported marked improvement in pain, mobility, strength, and function with the addition of conservative physical treatment. SUMMARY: Erythema infectiosum is associated with a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, where arthropathy is the most common clinical manifestation in adults. Erythema infectiosum should be suspected as a potential differential diagnosis when a patient presents with red or purplish skin rashes, especially when accompanied by fever and joint pain. Conservative management could be considered as an adjunctive therapy option for this condition. However, further validation and research is warranted.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicDermatological and COVID-19 studiesFrench-language works237,207