MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W143250165 · doi:10.2310/6620.2008.06062

Detection of Nickel Sensitivity Has Increased in North American Patch-Test Patients

2008· article· en· W143250165 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Robert L. Rietschel, Joseph F. Fowler, Erin M. Warshaw, D. Belsito, Vincent A. DeLeo, Howard I. Maibach, James G. Marks, Toby C.G. Mathias, Melanie D. Pratt, Denis Sasseville, Frances J. Storrs, James S. Taylor, Kathryn A. Zug

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNickel allergyMedicinePatch testContact dermatitisPatch testingNickelContact allergyAllergyAllergic contact dermatitisHand dermatitisPopulationDermatologyInternal medicineImmunologyEnvironmental healthMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nickel allergy has been studied by contact dermatitis groups around the world, and the frequency of nickel sensitivity has been reported to be decreasing in some populations. OBJECTIVE: To review the prevalence of nickel allergy as observed by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 1992 to 2004. METHODS: The computer database of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group was used to examine the prevalence of nickel allergy over the study period and to analyze it by time, sex, and age. RESULTS: From 1992 to 2004, 25,626 patients were patch-tested. The percentage of women tested was fairly constant (61.4-66.3%). A steady increase in nickel sensitivity was seen from 1992 to 2004. Subgroup analysis did not identify a population with declining nickel allergy. CONCLUSIONS: Nickel allergy continues to increase in younger and older men and women patch-tested in North America.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations77
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207