Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eczematous reactions to natural rubber latex (NRL) have been associated with both immediate and delayed hypersensitivity. OBJECTIVE: To determine clinical cases that might require testing for immediate sensitivity or patch testing for delayed hypersensitivity to latex fabric. METHODS: Patients with suspected sensitivity to NRL were given in vitro testing by radioallergosorbent test (RAST) or ImmunoCAP test and if negative, were prick-tested. If prick-test results were negative and the patients were still available, patch testing was done with latex glove fabric. Case histories of persons with positive results on RASTs, ImmunoCAP tests, prick tests, and patch tests were reviewed for clinical presentation and relevance. RESULTS: Of 92 persons with positive responses, 26 had positive RAST results, 26 had positive ImmunoCAP test results, 33 had positive prick-test results, and 7 had a positive patch-test result. Presentations included hand urticaria or eczema (46 patients), eyelid dermatitis (14), shoe dermatitis (10), atopic eczema (6), waistband dermatitis (5), clothing dermatitis (3), contact eczema to elastic in a mask (2), urticaria to a phlebotomy tourniquet, and eczema over the elbows and from an elastic bandage used for occlusive dressing therapy. Several other presentations were less likely to be relevant. CONCLUSION: Persons with putative contact dermatitis in areas that may come into contact with NRL deserve not only to be patch-tested with rubber chemicals but also to be tested for immediate sensitivity and, if results are negative, to be patch-tested with NRL.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".