Foot dermatitis caused by the textile dye Basic Red 46 in acrylic blend socks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
17 male subjects are described with foot dermatitis in association with positive patch test reactions to the textile dye Basic Red 46. Chromatographic analysis of the socks of 2 affected patients confirmed the presence of Basic Red 46. Withdrawal of the acrylic blend socks suspected of having been dyed with Basic Red 46 resulted in the improvement of symptoms in 12 of 17 patients (70.6%). However, equivocal or negative patch test results to their own socks were frequently noted in those patients. A highly significant association between the presence of foot dermatitis and a positive Basic Red 46 patch test reaction was noted in 555 patients from a patch test clinic population (P < 0.001). The prevalence of positive patch test reactions to Basic Red 46 was 1.2%. We suggest that patients with foot dermatitis be routinely patch tested for textile dyes. In particular, testing with Basic Red 46 should be considered in those with a history of use of dark-coloured acrylic and/or acrylic blend socks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".