Allergic contact dermatitis to edible essential oils: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
had a naturally deep voice.All drug treatment administered in emergency room was unnecessary and could have been iatrogenic, especially with intramuscular adrenaline injection.2 However, in an emergency situation and due to a lack of available data, injecting adrenaline is appropriate.Allergic contact dermatitis to BP is well known, since 1982.[3][4][5][6][7] BP is one of the most commonly prescribed for topical acne treatment.BP is a powerful antimicrobial agent against Cutibacterium acnes (formerly named Propionibacterium acne), the primary pathogenic agent implicated in the development of inflammatory acne [Correction added on 23 December 2024, after first online publication: The bacteria name for Propionibacterium acne has been changed in this version.].BP is also used in leg ulcer therapy and is employed in the chemical industry, as an initiator in free-radical-induced polymerisation of monomers to form plastics, and in the food industry, as a bleaching agent.It is known that BP can caused severe angioedematous reaction without other typical signs of contact dermatitis.8 However, in our patient's case, the history was fairly typical, with a pruritic reaction on the second day, then a voluminous edema on the third day, and finally desquamation.Strong allergens are well known to cause angioedema of the face with intense pruritus, especially with the notorious paraphenylene diamine contact dermatitis.9 All practitioners need to know how to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis, even in the form of angioedema.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".