Hyaluronic acid soft tissue filler delayed inflammatory reaction following COVID‐19 vaccination – A case report
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of hyaluronic acid soft tissue fillers in aesthetic medicine exploded in recent years for many reasons, including being relatively safe. Incidence of delayed inflammatory reactions (DIRs) to hyaluronic acid soft tissue fillers range between 0.3% and 4.25%. These reactions are mediated by T-lymphocytes and can be triggered by flu-like illnesses, including SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccination may also induce hypersensitivity. AIM: In this case report, we present two cases of delayed reaction after hyaluronic acid soft tissue filler treatment of the tear trough area and following mRNA vaccination against SARS-Cov-2, also known as COVID-19, months later. PATIENTS: A 39-year old female who previously had her tear trough area treated with hyaluronic acid soft tissue filler developed swelling days after getting the mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Another patient, a 61-year-olf female, developed intermittent facial swelling in areas previously treated with hyaluronic acid soft tissue fillers days after receiving her first dose of the mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: As demonstrated in our case report, vaccination against COVID-19 may induce DIRs in patients who previously had hyaluronic soft tissue fillers. CONCLUSION: Delayed inflammatory reactions to hyaluronic acid soft tissue fillers are uncommon and usually self-limited, with frequent spontaneous resolution. However, considering the ongoing pandemic and the worldwide demand for vaccines against COVID-19, the aesthetic providers should be conscious of the risks posed by the interaction of such vaccines in patients who previously had or seeking hyaluronic acid soft tissue filler injections.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it