Contact Dermatitis to Personal Sporting Equipment in Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact dermatitis to personal sporting equipment in youth is poorly studied. OBJECTIVE: To review the results of patch testing 6 youth to their sporting equipment in a dermatology general private practice from 2006 to 2011. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 6 youth aged 11 to 14 who were evaluated for chronic and persistent dermatitis occurring in relation to sports equipment was conducted. All patients were subjected to epicutaneous (patch) testing, which included some or all of the following: North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACGD) series, textile series, rubber series, corticosteroid series, and raw material from the patients' own personal equipment. RESULTS: All cases had 1 or more positive patch test reactions to an allergen within the aforementioned series, and 3 subjects tested positive to their personal equipment in raw form. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic contact dermatitis, not irritant, was deemed the relevant cause of chronic dermatitis in 4 of the 6 patients due to positive reactions to epicutaneous tests and/or personal equipment. The utility of testing to patients' own sporting equipment was shown to be of additional value and should be considered when patch testing for contact allergy to sporting equipment.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".