MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE UTILITY OF THE TRUE TEST IN A PRIVATE PRACTICE SETTING

2005· article· en· W2324197207 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giuseppe Militello, Denise K. Woo, Jonathan Kantor, William D. James

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatch testDermatologyTriageTest (biology)Allergic contact dermatitisPrivate practiceContact dermatitisPatch testingRetrospective cohort studySurgeryEmergency medicineAllergyFamily medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that the Thin-Layer Rapid-Use Epicutaneous Test (TRUE Test) may be inadequate to completely diagnose a significant number of patients with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). OBJECTIVE: To study the usefulness of the TRUE Test as a triage tool in a private practice setting. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients who were patch-tested with the TRUE Test between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2004, in four private dermatology practices was conducted. RESULTS: Of the 183 patients evaluated, 50.8% had at least one positive reaction, 31.7% had a diagnosis of ACD, and 24.0% were suspected to have ACD from other allergens. Of the patients with positive reactions, 62.4% were determined to have reactions that were of present relevance. CONCLUSIONS: The TRUE Test allows patients with dermatitis to be triaged systematically in a private practice setting. It is important to supplement patch testing with the patients' personal products, especially in cases of facial or periorbital dermatitis, and to be aware of potential false negatives, particularly with fragrance and rubber additives.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.252 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207