North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch-Test Results, 1998 to 2000
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patch testing is the most worthwhile diagnostic tool for the evaluation of patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. Objective: This study reports patch-testing results from July 1, 1998, to December 31, 2000, by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. Methods: Patients were tested with the same screening series of allergens, using a standardized patch-testing technique. The data from these patients were recorded on a standard computer entry form and analyzed. Results: Fifty allergens were tested on over 5,800 patients. Amidoamine, benzophenone-3, and iodopropynyl butylcarbamate were the new allergens. The top 10 allergens in frequency of positive reactions were identical to those of our 1996-to 1998-study period. The incidence of allergic nickel reactions continues to go up, leading all the test substances by 16.2%. Conclusion: Our findings reinforce the need for a more comprehensive group of diagnostic allergens than is found in the T.R.U.E. TEST, which is sold in the United States.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".