Positive Patch-Test Reactions to Gold: Patientsʼ Perception of Relevance and the Role of Titanium Dioxide in Cosmetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Positive patch-test reactions to gold that are without obvious clinical relevance are common. We speculate that titanium dioxide in cosmetics and sunscreens may adsorb gold particles in jewelry that occasionally contacts facial skin and cause contact dermatitis on this area despite the absence of dermatitis under gold jewelry worn on the hands. OBJECTIVE: To identify subgroups of gold allergic patients who improve with avoidance of gold. METHODS: A questionnaire was mailed to 102 gold-allergic patients. RESULTS: There were 49 responses, of which all but one were from women. When asked to evaluate the statement that patch testing with gold was useful to them, one-third of respondents agreed completely, one-third agreed in part, and one-third disagreed. The majority of patients reported that their dermatitis improved after patch testing, but most were avoiding other allergens in addition to gold. CONCLUSIONS: Avoidance of gold earrings did not appear to benefit patients with earlobe dermatitis, but total avoidance of gold jewelry on the hands and wrists did seem to benefit a subgroup of patients with facial and eyelid dermatitis who wore powder, eye shadow, or foundation on affected areas.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".