Multicenter Patch Testing With a Resol Resin Based on Phenol and Formaldehyde Within the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact allergy to phenol-formaldehyde resins (PFRs) based on phenol and formaldehyde is not detected by a p-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin included in most baseline patch test series. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to investigate the contact allergy rate to PFR-2 in an international population and to investigate associated simultaneous allergic reactions. METHODS: Thirteen centers representing the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group included PFR-2 into their patch test baseline series during a period of 6 months in 2012. RESULTS: Of 2259 patients tested, 28 (1.2%) reacted to PFR-2. Of those 28 individuals, one had a positive reaction to formaldehyde and 2 to p-tertiary-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin. Simultaneous allergic reactions were noted to colophonium in 3, to Myroxylon pereirae in 5, and to fragrance mix I in 8. CONCLUSIONS: The contact allergy frequency in the tested population (1.2%) merits its inclusion into the international baseline series and possibly also into other baseline series after appropriate investigations. Significantly, overrepresented simultaneous allergic reactions were noted for M. pereirae and fragrance mix I.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".