Lack of Association Between Dust Mite Sensitivity and Atopic Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dust mites (DMs) play a role in type I respiratory allergy. Studies relating to DM irritant versus immune reactions are somewhat conflicting in atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic use of patch testing to DM in patients with AD and other dermatitides. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 323 adults recruited in a patch testing clinic. Patch testing antigens were DM extract (0.01%, 0.1%, 1%, 10%, and 20% in petrolatum; Chemotechnique) and/or 200 index of reactivity in petrolatum (Stallergenes). Patches were placed and read at 48 hours with delayed readings after 72 to 168 hours. RESULTS: There was no association of DM positivity with AD, asthma, hay fever, or demographic factors. There was no association of DM positivity with the clinical diagnosis or phenotype. The number of positive (+, ++, and +++) and doubtful reactions to Chemotechnique DM extract increased with higher concentrations. Positive reactions to DM had a morphological appearance characterized by numerous discrete erythematous papules and, rarely, papulovesicles. Positive reactions to Stallergenes DM 200 IR were infrequent and all weak reactions, similar to DM 0.01%. CONCLUSIONS: Patch testing to DM does not seem to have clinical use for determining the etiology of dermatitis.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".