Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis is considered one of the most common causes of eyelid dermatitis. In addition to metals and topical antibiotics, fragrances have emerged as a leading source of contact allergy for individuals with this condition. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the added benefit of including a fragrance tray when patch testing patients presenting with eyelid dermatitis. METHODS: During a 4.5-year period, all patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis involving the eyelids were patch tested with both standard and fragrance trays. RESULTS: One hundred consecutive patients with eyelid dermatitis were patch tested. Of these patients, 42 (42%) tested positive for 1 or more allergens within the fragrance series. Of these patients, 15 (36%) had no fragrance markers detected on the standard series, and these allergens would therefore have been missed had fragrance series testing not been performed. Overall, fragrance markers within the standard series detected 73.2% (41/56) of cases of fragrance allergy. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that there may be a significant benefit to fragrance series testing in patients with eyelid dermatitis. Fragrance tray inclusion in this population may identify additional cases of fragrance allergy that are missed by the standard series.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".