021 Contact Sensitivity in Patients with Leg Ulcerations: A North American Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Over the last two decades, there have been a number of studies in Europe on contact sensitivity in patients with chronic leg ulcerations with a frequency of positive patch test results ranging from 40 to 82.5%. The prevalence of sensitization has not been studied in North America. Furthermore, many of the newer dressings and wound care products in the market have not been studied for contact sensitivity in patients with chronic wounds. Objectives: 1) To determine the prevalence of allergen sensitivity in patients with history of leg ulcers in two North American study centers, 2) to compare our results to the European studies and to the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) database and 3) to help delineate a standard battery of allergens for patch testing in North American leg ulcer patients Methods: 54 patients with an active or past leg ulcer were prospectively entered in the study. The patients were patch tested to both the NACDG Standard series, as well as, a comprehensive supplemental series of 48 allergens including wound care medicaments and dressings. Results: 63% of patients were sensitized to at last one allergen. The most common allergens were Balsam of Peru (29.6%), bacitracin (24.1%), fragrance mix (20.4%), wood tar mix (20.4%), propylene glycol (13.5%), neomycin sulfate (13%), benzalkonium chloride (13%), carba mix (11.1%), nickel sulfate (11.1%) and Duoderm CGF (11.1%). Duoderm CGF was the most allergenic dressing in our study group. Conclusion: There is a high incidence of positive patch tests in patients with past or current leg ulcerations. Using a modified leg ulcer series along with the standard NACDG series is very important in evaluating patients with leg ulcers.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".