Hyposensitization and Desensitization in Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acquired allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) causes significant morbidity. Certain occupations predispose workers to ACD, especially those that may damage the skin barrier. Allergic contact dermatitis has significant socioeconomic effects. Allergic contact dermatitis is difficult to treat, particularly if exposure is unavoidable. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to establish the efficacy of intradermal steroid injections in inducing specific antigen hyposensitization when administered weekly into shifted patch-test sites. METHODS: Prospective, open-label trial included 10 patients with ACD. Each week for up to 8 weeks, patients were patch-tested to their known allergen, and the patch-test site was injected with triamcinolone. Primary outcomes were clinical score, reaction size, erythema, and thermal characteristics. Statistical analysis included regression, correlation, repeated measures, and analysis of variance with contrast variables. RESULTS: Overall results suggest significant decreases in patch-testing reactions as evidenced by improved clinical scores, reaction sizes, and reduced heat production. In 3 patients, the patch test became negative. This desensitized state persisted for 2 months in 1 patient and for 4 months in the other 2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Repetitive treatments of weekly, shifted, positive patch test sites with intradermal steroid injections show a tendency toward allergen-specific hyposensitivity and in some cases to nonreactivity at repeat patch testing. This finding may influence future management of ACD.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".