MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396237880 · doi:10.1089/derm.2023.0394

Treatment of Refractory Hand and Foot Eczema with Nail Involvement Using Upadacitinib: A Case Report

2024· letter· en· W4396237880 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yu Yan, Qian Zhao, Jinru Lin, Jiaxuan Wang, Huiping Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNail (fastener)Refractory (planetary science)DermatologyFoot (prosody)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

cilastatin-induced HSRs, including ours, there were not a cross-reactivity to meropenem.However, Bakir et al. had described a patient with meropenem-induced MPE, who cross reacted to ertapenem and tolerated imipenem.1 In addition to the betalactam ring, the carbapenem nucleus contains an unsaturated 5-membered ring with a carbon atom.It is the side chains attached to this basic 2ring structure that distinguishes the different carbapenems from each other.Meropenem and ertapenem display a pyrrolidine side chain present in the C-2 position, absent in the imipenem structure.1 This hypothesis could explain the selective pattern of the hypersensitivity to imipenem found in our patient and others and the potential cross-reactivity between meropenem and ertapenem as found by Bakir et al. 1 Therefore, we report a clinical case of imipeneminduced nonimmediate hypersensitivity, with a lack of cross-reactivity to other betalactams, especially meropenem and ertapenem.In light of the literature analysis, we strongly suggest that hypersensitivity to imipenem is "selective" and that the use of other carbapenems (ertapenem, meropenem) could be safe.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.003
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207