MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325113169 · doi:10.2310/7750.2014.13215

Polysensitization in Recurrent Lip Dermatitis

2015· article· en· W2325113169 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Fraser, Melanie D. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLanolinMedicinePatch testingDermatologyContact dermatitisBacitracinPatch testAllergic contact dermatitisAllergyImmunologyAntibioticsMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), polysensitization consists of positive patch test reactions to three or more unrelated allergens. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this case report is to document a 27-year-old female with recurrent lip dermatitis, polysensitization, and reactions to a number of clinically relevant exposures. METHODS: Patch testing results revealed positive reactions to tixocortol-21-pivalate (3+), lanolin (3+), neomycin (3+), nickel (1+), hydroxyethyl methylacrylate (3+), bacitracin (3+), and abitol (3+). RESULTS: The patient had seven positive reactions, meeting the criteria for polysensitization. Of known clinical relevance, the patient had applied lanolin-containing lip balms and hydrocortisone- and bacitracin-containing products to the lips, all of which she was strongly reactive to on patch testing. CONCLUSION: Polysensitization occurs when three or more unrelated allergens are positive on patch testing. This case highlights the importance of considering polysensitization in ACD as numerous allergens that were positive on patch testing were clinically relevant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207