Clinically Relevant Patch Test Results in Patients With Burning Mouth Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with a sore or burning mouth associated with clinically normal oral mucosa present a difficult diagnostic challenge. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the value of patch testing in patients with burning mouth syndrome. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the results of patch testing to an oral series in patients with burning mouth syndrome seen at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, between January 2000 and April 2006. RESULTS: Of 195 consecutive patients with a burning or sore mouth, 75 had patch testing to an oral series, and 28 of these patients (37.3%) had allergic patch test reactions. The most common allergens were nickel sulfate hexahydrate 2.5%, balsam of Peru, and gold sodium thiosulfate 0.5%. On follow-up, 15 patients reported improvement, 4 removed or avoided the offending dental metal, and 6 avoided the dietary allergen. Thirteen patients did not improve; 6 avoided identified allergens, but without improvement; 1 removed dental metals without symptom change; and 5 avoided test-positive dietary allergens but without improvement. The remaining 7 nonresponders had nonrelevant patch test results or did not avoid allergens. CONCLUSIONS: Patch testing can identify patients who may be allergic to dental metals or dietary additives and who may benefit from removal or avoidance of these.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".