MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216153628 · doi:10.1177/2050313x211057934

Id reaction and allergic contact dermatitis post-picosecond laser tattoo removal: A case report

2021· article· en· W3216153628 on OpenAlex
Ian T.Y. Wong, Larry WK Cheung

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSAGE Open Medical Case Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTattoo and Body Piercing Complications
Canadian institutionsSKiN HealthUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDermatologyAllergic contact dermatitisPicosecondHypersensitivity reactionContact dermatitisLaserAllergyImmunologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The novel picosecond lasers have emerged as a mainstay device in laser tattoo removal alongside Q-switch lasers, considered the gold standard in the field. Here, we present a 45-year-old female who developed a severe reaction to both her treated and untreated tattoos after two picosecond laser treatments and subsequent widespread eczematous eruption. Skin biopsies revealed findings consistent with hypersensitivity to exogenous red pigment. The clinicopathologic findings were consistent with an id reaction (autoeczematization) associated with allergic contact dermatitis to tattoo pigment. This case report highlights the potential for tattoo hypersensitivity following picosecond laser treatment and the dilemma associated with tattoo removal in sensitized patients. Additional therapeutic approaches are needed to provide patients with a safe means of tattoo removal while mitigating the risk of hypersensitivity reactions.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.316 · 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