MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051180489 · doi:10.1097/der.0b013e31829cb0d1

The Relevance of 7-Day Patch Test Reading

2013· article· en· W2051180489 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eleanor Higgins, Paul M. Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatch testSodium metabisulfiteCobalt chlorideAllergyDermatologySurgeryOrganic chemistryCobaltImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patch test readings are usually performed on day 2 (48 hours) and day 4 (96 hours). However, reports in the literature identify delayed allergy to metals, corticosteroids, antibiotics, some preservatives, acrylic and methacrylic monomers and p-phenylenediamine. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to identify the benefit of performing a day 7 (168 hours) reading to identify relevant late positive reactions. PATIENTS/METHODS/MATERIALS: Two hundred three consecutive patients were patch tested to the British Society for Cutaneous Allergy standard series with additional test series selected according to clinical history and applied at the same time. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (12.8%) had new positive reactions on day 7 (168 hours), with 28 relevant positive reactions to 21 allergens. These included mercury 0.5% (2/26); cobalt chloride 1% (2/26); colophony 20% (2/26); disperse blue mix 106/124 1% (2/26); preservatives (4/26) that included Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, sodium metabisulfite, and diazolidinyl urea; fragrances (7/26); and gentamycin sulfate 20% (1/26). CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm findings in the literature and support the argument for performing a day 7 reading (168 hours) to identify relevant late positive reactions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations45
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207