The Patent Blue V Paradox: Hidden Offender, Serial Culprit
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Background: Patent Blue V (PBV) is extensively used in sentinel lymph node identification in cancer surgery, potentially leading to an increased incidence of hypersensitivity reactions. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with suspected PBV hypersensitivity, at our center from 2010 to 2023. Skin prick tests (SPT) were performed on all patients, followed by intradermal tests (IDT) if SPT was negative. Results: Of 160 patients with suspected perioperative hypersensitivity reactions (POH), 15 (9.4%) had received PBV. All patients were female, with a median age of 50 years. None had been previously exposed to PBV. In 2 cases, there was no registry of PBV use. In vivo tests were mostly performed 6–9 months after the index reaction (53%). PBV allergy was confirmed in 80% of cases via positive skin tests (SPT [ n = 10] or IDT [ n = 2]). In PBV allergic patients, anaphylaxis occurred in 7 patients (58%). A rising incidence of PBV allergy in the POH setting was observed from 2010 to 2023. Conclusions: PBV is a significant allergen in POH, with increasing incidence. SPT is effective and frequent enough for diagnosis, suggesting an IgE-mediated mechanism. Despite its allergenic potential, PBV’s clinical utility supports its continued use with appropriate precautions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it