MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026169284 · doi:10.1097/der.0b013e318262cadb

Airborne Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Tylosin in Pharmacy Compounders and Cross-Sensitization to Macrolide Antibiotics

2012· article· en· W2026169284 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Viba Malaiyandi, Marie Claude Houle, Sandy Skotnicki-Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTylosinMedicineDermatologyAllergic contact dermatitisAntibioticsSensitizationContact dermatitisCompoundingAllergyPatch testingPharmacyMacrolide AntibioticsVeterinary medicineMicrobiologyImmunologyPharmacologyFamily medicineErythromycinBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tylosin is a broad-spectrum macrolide antibiotic that is restricted to veterinary use. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) caused by tylosin has been reported in the literature from the farming industry and veterinary medicine. It is also reported as the most common antibiotic to cause ACD in the previously mentioned occupational settings. We present 2 cases of airborne ACD from tylosin among veterinary pharmaceutical compounding technicians. To our knowledge, only one other case of patch test-confirmed tylosin ACD has been reported in the manufacturing setting. Based on our results, cross-sensitization to other clinically relevant macrolides does not appear to be a concern. Our cases highlight the importance of patch testing among pharmaceutical compounders where the incidence of an airborne contact may be greater, given that the exposure is to the powdered form of potential allergens.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207