Results of patch testing with the textile colour and finish tray
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Textile dermatitis results from exposure to a variety of agents, including dyes and fabric finishes. Patch testing with a specialized series of allergens is often used for diagnosis. To examine the results of patch testing with the textile components on a standard screening tray, and to compare them with the results of testing with an exclusive collection of textile allergens. We conducted a retrospective study of 41 patients with possible work-related dermatitis who were patch tested to a screening (includes textile finish and dye mix) and a textile series from 2002-2009. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted from the chart and basic descriptive analysis was performed. Seven of the 41 patients had positive reactions to textile related allergens on the screening or textile series and five were thought to be work-related. Four patients who were patch test positive with the textile series were also positive to relevant allergens on the screening series. Two patients with work-related textile dermatitis were patch test positive to the textile series but negative to the screening series. One case related to fabric finishes and one to the dyes. In an additional work-related case, there was a positive reaction to Disperse Blue Dye 106/124 mix on the screening series, with no positive reactions on the textile series. Clinically relevant work-related allergic contact dermatitis to textile allergens may be missed if only a screening series is used.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".