Recommendations for a Screening Series for Allergic Contact Eyelid Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids is a common condition, limited information is available regarding the selection of patch-testing chemicals for proper evaluation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the relevance of allergens responsible for allergic eyelid dermatitis among a series of patch-tested patients attending our clinic at the University of Miami and compare these results to published studies in the literature. METHODS: Data were retrospectively reviewed for eyelid-only dermatitis from clinically relevant patch-test evaluations performed between December 2004 and January 2007. RESULTS: Formaldehyde was the most frequently encountered antigen, accounting for 45.83% (11/24) of the cases, followed by nickel 33.33% (8/24) and balsam of Peru (Myroxylon pereirae) 29.17% (7/24). In addition, not only did we find a higher prevalence of certain allergens when compared with other studies, but we identified several relevant allergens not previously reported at other referral centers. CONCLUSIONS: The allergens found to be relevant in eyelid dermatitis vary among different regions. These data may help contribute to generating a standard screening tool to improve the detection and management of these cases.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".