MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175977384 · doi:10.1177/12034754211024124

Electrodessication Matricectomy With Modified Hyfrecator Tip: Case Series and Literature Review

2021· review· en· W3175977384 on OpenAlexaff
Janet Chan, Kevin Pehr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNail Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)Patient satisfactionSurgeryDermatologySeries (stratigraphy)Refractory (planetary science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nail matricectomy is indicated in the management of painful onychodystrophies, including recalcitrant onychocryptosis, onychogryphosis, onychauxis, and refractory onychomycosis. Although many matricectomy methods have been described, with phenolization being the best studied, no one method has clearly emerged as superior. We present a series of 14 patients who underwent a total of 18 matricectomies with either phenolization or electrodessication (ED) in a private dermatology office, and describe a simple and effective variation of the ED technique using a modified hyfrecator tip. A video demonstration of this technique is included. We also describe ED matricectomy in the context of a review of the literature, ascertaining recurrence rates, complication rates, healing time, and patient satisfaction. The nuances of technique specifics (such as the use of adjunct methods and antibiotics), as well as outcome predictors and measurements have been highlighted. We found ED to be comparable to other forms of matricectomy, with the advantages of ease of use, minimal complications, and good satisfaction rates.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicNail Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207