MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366446591 · doi:10.46875/jmd.v11i1.661

Abscesso após preenchimento com ácido hialurônico

2023· article· pt· W4366446591 on OpenAlexaff
Paolla Mendes Vieira Mascarenhas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Multidisciplinary Dentistry · 2023
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia Techniques
Canadian institutionsIntertek (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As complicações pelo uso de preenchedores à base de ácido hialurônico podem ser decorrentes de inexperiência do injetor, técnica incorreta ou inerente ao próprio produto. As infecções de partes moles, comumente, ocorrem nas primeiras duas semanas da aplicação do produto. O caso relatado apresenta uma paciente feminina que se submeteu ao preenchimento com ácido hialurônico, na face, por um cirurgião-dentista que trabalha com harmonização orofacial. Evoluiu com sinais de edema na região de nasogeniano no terceiro dia, paciente foi orientada a fazer compressa morna e medicada com anti-inflamatório, após vigésimo segundo dia de aplicação teve edema, hematoma e dor ao tocar na região, com piora significativa do quadro, edema e rubor facial, hematomas bilaterais até o vigésimo quinto dia, necessitando de aplicação de hialuronidase e antibioticoterapia, associado à ozonioterapia. Apresentou melhora importante do quadro após iniciar com a medicação e aplicações de ozônio. Apesar de serem complicações pouco frequentes, as infecções de partes moles devem ser precoce e adequadamente abordadas devido ao alto risco de desenvolver biofilme, que é uma entidade de tratamento mais difícil. Por isto, este procedimento deve ser realizado por profissional capacitado que tenha habilidade para tratar as intercorrências.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Multidisciplinary DentistrySame topicDental Anxiety and Anesthesia TechniquesFrench-language works237,207