Patch Testing in Oral Lichenoid Lesions of Uncertain Etiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefit of patch testing patients with oral lichenoid lesions (OLL) is still debated. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the results of patch testing in patients with multiple amalgams and multiple OLL, where the etiology of the oral mucosal disease was unclear. METHODS: Patients referred from an oral medicine clinic were patch tested to the British Society of Cutaneous Allergy standard series, dental and materials series, and, in 1 patient, the dental methacrylate series also. Patients' responses to amalgam removal were assessed during a mean follow-up of 2.6 (range, 0-4.75) years. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with OLL were referred for patch testing. Ten (32%) patients tested positively to mercury. Eight patients with positive reactions to mercury had amalgam removal, with complete or partial resolution of the OLL in all cases (100%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with OLL of unclear etiology adjacent to large amalgam restorations should be investigated for delayed contact hypersensitivity. Removal of amalgams in patients with positive patch test reactions to mercury results in improvement or resolution of the OLL in most patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".