A Double-Blind Randomized Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study Comparing Topical Immunomodulating Agents and Corticosteroids for Treatment of Experimentally Induced Nickel Contact Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although topical glucocorticoids are effective for most inflammatory skin disorders, their use is limited by local and systemic side effects. Tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are immunomodulators that provide clinicians with steroid-sparing options in the long-term topical treatment of allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To obtain pilot data regarding the relative efficacies of pimecrolimus 1% cream, tacrolimus 0.1% ointment, clobetasol propionate 0.05% ointment, and triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% ointment, as compared to control preparations (Vanicream and petrolatum), for treatment of experimentally induced nickel contact dermatitis. METHODS: Twenty-one volunteers with positive patch test reactions to nickel sulfate 5% at six sites (three on each arm) applied each study medication to one nickel site, respectively, twice daily for 14 days. Study medications were prepared in identical syringes, and the site of application was randomly assigned by a computer-generated randomization schedule. Assessments were performed at 3, 7, 10, and 14 days after randomization. RESULTS: Most reactions were coded as resolved or as almost resolved by day 14 regardless of treatment. Although most pairwise comparisons were not statistically significant, a clear trend was observed for sites treated with active drug to do better than control sites. CONCLUSION: Possible explanations for these results include contamination by neighboring medication sites, timing of assessments, and lack of repeated nickel applications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".