Patch Testing for Metal Allergy With Manufacturer-Supplied Materials Before Nuss Bar Insertion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The increasing use of metal implantable devices has raised awareness of nickel allergy. Preoperative patch testing for patients with pectus excavatum (PE) with a known metal allergy or history of atopy is an accepted practice before the Nuss procedure. The Nuss bar manufacturer offers a metal disc for preoperative testing for metal sensitivities. However, the efficacy of this disc is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity of the metal disc in detecting nickel allergy compared with that of standard patch testing. METHODS: Two PE patients were referred for preoperative patch testing with the metal disc to screen for metal allergy before the Nuss procedure. Based on our initial findings, 7 patients without PE scheduled for patch testing for the evaluation of chronic dermatitis were additionally tested with the metal disc if they were found to have risk factors for nickel allergy. All patch testing was performed according to set standards. CONCLUSIONS: The metal disc may not be adequately sensitive to determine nickel allergy before the Nuss procedure. Patch testing alone with standard formulations of nickel sulfate in petrolatum may be more sensitive in diagnosing nickel allergy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".