Low Yield for Extended Reading of Patch Tests with Topical Corticosteroids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: On the basis of reports that up to 30% of patch test reactions are missed if an extended reading is not performed, we required that patients who were being patch tested with the corticosteroid series return for a reading at least 1 week after placement of the allergens. OBJECTIVE: To report our institutional experience with extended readings (day 7 or beyond) of patch test reactions to the corticosteroid series. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patch test reactions to corticosteroids since extended readings were implemented (April 2001 to June 2004). RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were patch tested with 1,656 corticosteroid allergens. On day 5, five patients had five positive patch test reactions; by the time of the extended reading, no new reactions had developed in these patients. Of the patients with no reactions on day 5, two had a positive result at the extended reading: each had a relevant reaction to budesonide 0.1%, one on day 7 and the other on day 9. CONCLUSIONS: Only 2 reactions (to 1,656 corticosteroids) became apparent at the extended reading. Extended readings were of limited value in our experience.
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".