Patch Testers’ Opinions Regarding Diagnostic Criteria for Metal Hypersensitivity Reactions to Metallic Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metal hypersensitivity reactions to implanted devices remain a challenging and controversial topic. Diagnostic criteria and methods are not well delineated. OBJECTIVE: Diagnostic criteria for hypersensitivity reactions after metallic device implantation are evaluated in this study by a multinational group of patch testers using Thyssen's previously published criteria. METHODS: A total of 119 dermatologists at the 2012 European Contact Dermatitis Society and 2013 American Contact Dermatitis Society meetings answered a survey regarding their opinions on topics relating to metal hypersensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Four major and 5 minor diagnostic criteria emerged. Approximately 80% of respondents found the following criteria useful (major criteria): chronic dermatitis beginning weeks to months after metallic implantation, eruption overlying the metal implant, positive patch test to a metal component of the implant, and complete clearing after removal of the potentially allergenic implant. Minor criteria (<61% of respondents) were as follows: systemic allergic dermatitis reaction, therapy-resistant dermatitis, morphology consistent with dermatitis, histology consistent with allergic contact dermatitis, and a positive in vitro test to metals (eg, lymphocyte transformation test). In the challenging situation such as a symptomatic or failing orthopedic device, applying these 4 major criteria and the 5 supportive minor criteria may be useful for guiding decision making.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".