Common Contact Allergens Associated with Eyelid Dermatitis: Data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2003-2004 Study Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis can be manifest as an eruption confined to the eyelids. In regard to this specific presentation, only limited information on which to base the selection of patch tests for proper evaluation is available. OBJECTIVE: To identify the contact allergens most frequently found to be both patch test positive and relevant when only the eyelids are involved. METHODS: Data collected from 2003 to 2004 by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) were analyzed for relevant allergens in the setting of dermatitis on the eyelids only. Data on eyelid dermatitis patients whose relevant allergens were not among the 65 allergens used for screening during this study period were also tabulated. RESULTS: Data showed that 268 patients had only eyelid dermatitis and a final diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. In 193 (72%) of these, reactions were of current relevance and were identified from a screening series of 65 allergens. The top 26 allergens identified 65% of cases (175 cases). Gold was the most frequently encountered allergen (22 of 175 cases [12.5%]). Of the 268 cases, 33 showed relevant reactions to an allergen that was not among the 65 NACDG standard screening allergens. No specific allergen was identified in the remaining 42 cases. CONCLUSION: The top 26 allergens identified in this study represent a potential eyelid dermatitis screening series.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".