A High Likelihood of a Disastrous Outcome: A Case Report of a Complication From the Cosmetic Use of Hyaluronic Acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hyaluronic acid (HA) injections are a generally safe procedure, primarily performed to achieve a more aesthetically appealing appearance. Despite the safety of HA filler procedures, complications may arise in some individuals, such as tenderness, lumpiness, swelling, bruising, neurological impairments, embolism, soft-tissue necrosis, irreversible scarring, and baldness. We present a case of a 36-year-old previously healthy female who was injected with HA filler (Juvederm Voluma®) into the nasolabial folds for cosmetic purposes. A few hours later, she reported feeling pain in her right nasolabial region; 27 hours after the injection, the patient presented with a violaceous rash and was diagnosed clinically with arterial compromise due to HA injection 27 hours prior. She was managed with aspirin and hyaluronidase injections into the affected area. The complication resolved after two weeks of follow-up. HA used in our patient was very heavy in its molecular characteristics, and it should not be injected in the nasolabial fold. HA injections can lead to various complications, and both practitioners and patients should be aware of these potential adverse effects. Prompt intervention is required to ensure recovery from vascular occlusion in these patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".