Allergic Contact Dermatitis from Medical Adhesive Bandages in Patients Who Report Having a Reaction to Medical Bandages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical adhesive bandages are extensively used in both inpatient and outpatient medicine. However, few reports describing proven allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from medical adhesive bandages exist in the literature. These reports do not adequately correspond to the frequency that patients report having an "allergy" to medical adhesive bandages. OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a chemical present in medical adhesive bandages that causes ACD in people who identify themselves as having an "allergy" to medical adhesive bandages. METHODS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled and underwent patch testing with our standard trays (104 chemicals) and a customized adhesive tray (54 chemicals and 10 tapes and bandages in their whole form). RESULTS: We were able to identify an allergen in four patients that was related to their presumed adhesive allergy (Mastisol, neomycin/bacitracin [two different patients], and cortisone-10 cream, respectively). However, there were no positive allergic reactions to the tapes or bandages or any relevant allergic reactions to our customized adhesive tray. Eight (73%) of the 11 patients who had the bandage or tape left on for 7 days had an irritant reaction. CONCLUSION: We feel that the perceived reactions are not secondary to ACD but instead are due to an irritant contact dermatitis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".