MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013296708 · doi:10.1001/archderm.144.10.1329

Contact Allergy in Children Referred for Patch Testing

2008· article· en· W2013296708 on OpenAlexaff
Kathryn A. Zug, Daniel E. McGinley-Smith, Erin M. Warshaw, James S. Taylor, Robert L. Rietschel, Howard I. Maibach, D. Belsito, Joseph F. Fowler, Frances J. Storrs, Vincent A. DeLeo, James G. Marks, C. G. Toby Mathias, Melanie D. Pratt, Denis Sasseville

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Dermatology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatch testContact dermatitisPatch testingPopulationDermatologyPediatricsThimerosalContact allergyAllergyCobalt chlorideImmunologyEnvironmental healthCobalt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of positive and relevant patch tests in children referred for patch testing in North America; to compare results of patch testing children and adults; and to compare our results with international data on contact allergy in children. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analyses of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2004. Patch test reactions for allergens that were positive and considered of clinical importance to the patient's eczematous problem were defined as being of current or past relevance. SETTING: Clinical patch test data from 13 NACDG members, primarily a referral population. PATIENTS: The pediatric population (hereafter referred to as "children") was defined as patients aged 0 to 18 years (n = 391). Patients 19 years and older constituted the comparison adult group (n = 9670). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The frequency of positive patch test reactions and number of relevant ones. Secondary measures included the association of atopic markers, frequency of irritant reactions, and sources of relevant supplementary allergens. RESULTS: No significant difference in the overall frequency of at least 1 relevant positive patch test reaction was noted in children (51.2%) compared with adults (54.1%). The most frequent positive reactions in children were to nickel (28.3%), cobalt chloride (17.9%), thimerosal (15.3%), neomycin sulfate (8.0%), gold sodium thiosulfate (7.7%), and fragrance mix (5.1%). For children aged 0 to 18 the most frequent relevant positive reactions were to nickel sulfate (26.0%), cobalt (12.4%), neomycin (4.4%), fragrance mix (4.1%), gold (3.6%), and quaternium 15 (3.6%). The frequency of irritant reactions in adults and children was similar. Of the children with a relevant positive reaction, 34.0% had atopic dermatitis included as one of their final diagnoses, compared with 11.2% of adults (P < .001). Fifteen percent and 39% of children had relevant allergens not included in the NACDG series and a commercially available skin patch test (T.R.U.E. TEST [thin-layer rapid use epicutaneous test], panel 1.1 and 2.1; Allerderm, Phoenix, Arizona), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Adults and children in this group are equally likely to have allergic contact dermatitis; frequency of relevant allergen reactions differs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations158
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of DermatologySame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207