Correlation between Stated and Measured Concentrations of Acrylate and Methacrylate Allergens in Patch-Test Preparations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact allergy to acrylates and methacrylates is not uncommon. The allergy is confirmed by patch-testing patients with commercial patch-test preparations. OBJECTIVE: To investigate acrylate and methacrylate allergens used for patch testing in nine different dermatology departments from Europe, America, Asia, and Australia. METHODS: The acrylate and methacrylate (methyl methacrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl acrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, and triethylene glycol diacrylate) allergen samples were analyzed with high-performance liquid chromatography to measure the allergen content. RESULTS: Variation in measured versus stated concentrations was seen in these samples. The ratio of measured to stated concentrations ranged from 0.11 to 1.1. Only 22 (63%) of 35 samples were within the arbitrary acceptable limits of 80 to 120% of the stated concentrations. CONCLUSION: The results may have implications for individual diagnosis and prevention and when test results from various centers are compared.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".