Should Macular Erythema Reactions Be Counted as Positive Allergic Patch-Test Reactions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Positive allergic patch-test results are generally described as erythematous papules, vesicles, or a spreading reaction with crust and ulceration. This description excludes milder reactions, including macular erythema. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to investigate the prevalence and relevance of reactions graded as macular erythema at Mayo Clinic. METHODS: Between January 2001 and June 2004, patients suspected of having allergic contact dermatitis were patch-tested with our institution's standard patch test, a screening series of 68 to 72 allergens. In total, 2,823 patients were patch-tested with 193,530 allergen applications. Reactions were interpreted with the North American Contact Dermatitis Group scale, including and excluding reactions graded as macular erythema. Irritant reactions were excluded from calculations. For this study, scores for current, questionable, and past relevance were combined. RESULTS: On day 5, with the exclusion of reactions graded as irritant, 7,274 allergen applications were associated with reactions, including 3,082 (42.4%) that were graded as macular erythema. Of the macular erythema reactions, 2,430 (78.8%) were graded as relevant. The rate of reaction in our patients was 2.2% if macular erythema was excluded, 3.8% if all macular erythema reactions were included, and 3.4% if only those macular reactions deemed relevant were included. CONCLUSION: Patch-test reactions rated as macular erythema are common and may be of clinical relevance. For the purposes of patient education, they should not be disregarded. Consideration should be given to including these reactions when reporting patchtest results.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".