Contact Sensitization to Modern Wound Dressings in 70 Patients With Chronic Leg Ulcers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic leg ulcers typically experience contact allergy to topical treatments. Although declared as hypoallergenic, modern wound dressings have caused several reported cases of contact allergy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate any allergenic potential of modern wound dressings in patients with leg ulcers. METHODS: Seventy-one patients were included in our prospective observation. Patch tests were performed with a selection of 10 modern wound dressings and with selected allergens according to series of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG). RESULTS: Of 70 patients eligible for evaluation, 12 (17%) were positive for the hydrogel NuGel, followed by the hydrocolloid NuDerm (n = 7/70, 10%) and the ionic silver-containing wound dressing Aquacel Ag and the gauze Adaptic (both n = 4/70, 5%). Patients with recalcitrant ulcers of prolonged duration showed a significant higher number of epicutaneous sensitizations to wound dressings than patients with shorter ulcer duration. CONCLUSIONS: The allergenic potential of modern wound dressings should not be underestimated. There is need for precise declaration of all ingredients.
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".