Repeated Open Application Tests with Methyldibromoglutaronitrile in Dermatitis Patients with and without Hypersensitivity to Methyldibromoglutaronitrile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact allergy to and allergic contact dermatitis from methyldibromoglutaronitrile (MDBGN) have been frequently reported since the 1990s. OBJECTIVE: This study was initiated to help determine the optimal test preparation for MDBGN and to help determine the clinical relevance of such a contact allergy. METHOD: In 38 patients with positive (32 patients) or doubtful (6 patients) patch-test reactions to at least one of four test preparations of MDBGN in petrolatum at 1.0%, 0.5%, 0.3%, and 0.1% (all weight per weight [w/w]), a repeated open application test (ROAT) with moisturizers with and without MDBGN at 0.03% w/w was conducted on patients' upper arms for a maximum of 4 weeks. Seven patients not hypersensitive to MDBGN served as controls and went through the same procedure. RESULTS: Nineteen (59.4%) of the 32 MDBGN-allergic patients developed a positive ROAT result on the arm on which the moisturizer containing MDBGN was applied whereas no patients with doubtful or negative reactions to MDBGN reacted (p = .002). A statistically significant association was found between the patch-test reactivity and the outcome of the ROAT (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Patch testing with MDBGN at 0.3% and 0.1% will miss clinically relevant patch-test reactions to MDBGN.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".