Contact Dermatitis to Topical Medicaments: A Retrospective Chart Review From the Ottawa Hospital Patch Test Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Topical medicaments are a common cause of allergic contact dermatitis. This study will evaluate the prevalence of contact allergy to a wide array of topical medicaments at the Ottawa Patch Test Clinic. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to report the results of positive patch testing to topical medicaments at the Ottawa Patch Test Clinic and identify common sensitizers in topical medicaments. METHODS: Patients were tested with the standard North American Contact Dermatitis screening series of 70 allergens plus supplementary allergens when indicated. A retrospective chart review of patients positive to topical medicaments between January 1, 2000, and September 30, 2010, was undertaken. RESULTS: The average age of patients was 49.5 years. Thirty-four percent were atopic. Common sensitizers included topical antibiotics (58%), steroids (30%), anesthetics (6%), and antifungals (6%). Patch testing showed that 61% of patients tested positive to antibiotics, 21% to topical steroids, 17% tested positive to topical anesthetics, and 1% tested positive to topical antifungals. The most common reactions were to bacitracin (44%) and neomycin (29%). The most common steroid screener was tixocortol-17-pivalate (group A) (19%), and the most common local anesthetic was lidocaine (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Topical medicaments of all kinds are common causes of allergic contact dermatitis. Those that are more readily available, in over-the-counter preparations, are the most frequent culprits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".