Spontaneous resolution of eruptive papules following ablative laser resurfacing—Case report and review of <scp>laser‐associated</scp> eruptive keratoacanthomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Keratoacanthomas (KAs) following laser treatment are a rare, but well-described entity. AIM: Herein, we describe a case of eruptive keratoacanthoma (KA) following laser resurfacing treatment and aim to better characterize laser-associated KAs. METHODS: A literature search was performed on PubMed reviewing laser-associated KAs including various characteristics: epidemiology, history of skin cancer, location, and number, type of laser, as well as the management and outcome. RESULTS: Fractional ablative was the most common type of laser triggering KAs, and most cases presented within the first month following treatment. The majority of cases of laser-induced KA had a prior history of a malignant or premalignant skin neoplasm. Laser-induced KAs were treated using modalities similar to KAs arising in other contexts. CONCLUSION: Clinicians need to be knowledgeable and prepared to understand, and manage complications following laser treatments, as rare as they may be, including KAs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".