MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316926361 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000098

Nonallergic Reactions to Medical Tapes

2015· review· en· W2316926361 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sabrina M. Smith, Matthew Zirwas

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAllergyEtiologyDermatologyMedical recordMedical historySurgeryImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adverse dermatologic reactions to tapes are a common problem in the medical field and can delay or alter patient care, but their prevalence, etiology, and management are poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to make a distinction between true allergy and nonallergic tape reactions (NATRs) to medical tapes and to make recommendations for dermatologists in the approach to each. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the electronic medical record database at a large hospital system and a review of literature. CONCLUSIONS: Although tape allergy is reported by 0.3% of patients, true tape allergies are rare. More commonly, patients experience NATRs. True tape allergy and NATR are mechanistically distinct and can be distinguished from each other based on history. The approach to management of each is distinct.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207