MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156375532 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000755

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccines and Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: A Review

2021· review· en· W3156375532 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Miguel Alpalhão, João Maia‐Silva, Paulo Filipe

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineErythema multiformeVaccinationAdverse effectCoronavirusImmunologyIntensive care medicineDermatologyPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PathologyDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We are entering a new stage of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic with the initiation of large-scale vaccination programs globally. In these circumstances, even rare adverse effects of vaccines may be encountered more often, if millions of people are to be vaccinated in a short period. Vaccination has the potential for causing cutaneous adverse effects. Thus, it is paramount that dermatologists worldwide are acquainted with the possible skin reaction patterns to the coming vaccines. Herein, we conduct a review to discuss the most frequent cutaneous adverse effects of vaccines and their management, with a particular focus on the expected adverse reactions for the coming severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccines, such as local reactions, as well as immediate- and delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions, including erythema multiforme, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrosis, serum sickness-like reactions, and vasculitides. We also discuss the yet unanswered questions on vaccines for which we may soon be asked to provide an expert opinion.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicDrug-Induced Adverse ReactionsFrench-language works237,207