Clinical evaluation of patients patch tested with plant series: A prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plants are ubiquitous in nature and are essential for human life, though some do have detrimental effects. In India, there are various indigenous and foreign plants that are well known to cause dermatitis, Parthenium hysterophorus being the foremost. AIMS OF THE STUDY: To study the clinical features of patients presenting with plant dermatitis and evaluate plant allergen series patch test results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 50 patients with suspected plant dermatitis were evaluated regarding evolution of dermatitis, precipitating factors and contact with various plants. 31 patients (62%) complained of photo sensitivity and 24 (48%) had involvement of sun-exposed areas. Our provisional diagnoses included allergic contact dermatitis in 16, air borne contact dermatitis in 9, phytophotodermatitis in 7, photodermatitis in 6, airborne contact dermatitis to other causes in 4, phytodermatitis in 3. Patients were patch tested with Indian standard series of allergens as well as plant allergen series consisting of common allergenic plants of local flora in and around Manipal and also with plants strongly suspected by the patient. 35 tested positive with maximum positives (26 patients, i.e., 52%) to Parthenium hysterophorus (Compositae). RESULTS: The result of patch testing was correlated with the history and clinical examination and relevance established. CONCLUSIONS: Majority of the patients with clinically suspected plant dermatitis belonged to 3(rd) or 4(th) decade and Parthenium was the leading plant allergen Sensitization to Leguminosae plants and Hopea ponga, seen in 9 cases, have not been reported earlier in literature.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".