MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249670010 · doi:10.1177/120347540300700107

Foreign Body Granuloma: A New Manifestation of Immune Restoration Syndrome

2003· article· en· W4249670010 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Murray, Joel G. DeKoven, David Spaner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDrug-Induced Adverse Reactions
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmune systemImmunologyExacerbationGranulomaCytomegalovirusImmune reconstitution inflammatory syndromeImmunopathologyAntiretroviral therapyVirusViral loadViral diseaseHerpesviridae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: People with human immunodeficiency virus may experience an immune restoration syndrome during the lymphocyte recovery period following effective highly active antiretroviral therapy. In this syndrome, antigens that previously were ignored by the immune system now induce an exaggerated response with obvious clinical effects. Most cases have been associated with infectious agents such as cytomegalovirus or mycobacterium avium intracellulare. However, the sudden onset of sarcoidal granulomatous reactions have also been described in this setting. Objective: We report a 66-year-old HIV-positive man who presented with exacerbation of multiple foreign body granulomas decades after the original injuries. The presentation coincided with a significant rise in CD4 count after beginning highly active antiretroviral therapy. Conclusion: We propose that this case demonstrates another manifestation of the immune restoration syndrome and postulate that an uncontrolled Th1 response is the causative mechanism.

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: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicDrug-Induced Adverse ReactionsFrench-language works237,207