Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In a pilot questionnaire study, there was a high frequency of subjective complaints and distant skin reactions during patch testing as reported at the day of test reading, particularly in female patients.Objective: To document in a controlled study possible side-effects of a generalized nature occurring during the test procedure.Methods: A questionnaire study on symptoms and signs reported at application and at reading of standard patch tests was conducted with 401 patients, with the patients serving as their own controls.Results: An eczematous flare-up during patch testing was observed in 3.7% of the patients. There were plenty of different symptoms of malaise but, with one exception (itch on the back), the number of symptoms tended to be less on the day of reading than on the day of application of the tests. This held true also for itch occurring in the patients' dermatitis. There was no statistical correlation between symptoms and signs on the one hand and positive patch tests on the other.Conclusion: Distant skin reactions and impairment of general health occurring during patch testing are often reported at the time of test reading. However, with the exception of itch on the back, symptoms and signs are rather less common after the application of patch tests than before.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".