Results of Patch Testing in Patients Diagnosed with Oral Lichen Planus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral lichenoid lesions (OLLs) resemble oral lichen planus (OLP) but develop secondary to various underlying causes. The role of contact allergy in precipitating and/or perpetuating OLL is well documented but remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To help elucidate the association of contact allergy and OLL, we reviewed patch-test readings in patients diagnosed with OLP-like lesions. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients diagnosed with OLP-like lesions who had patch tests performed between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007. RESULTS: Patch tests were performed on 24 patients with a histopathologic and/or clinical diagnosis of OLP. Of these, 16 (67%) had positive patch-test readings. At least eight (50%) of these patients had clinically relevant reactions. Ten of the 16 patients (63%) had reactions to metals. In most of these patients, troublesome areas tended to localize adjacent to metallic dental restorations. Of the nine patients (56%) who had reactions to fragrances, flavorings, gallates, and/or diallyl disulfide, the majority improved after avoiding these allergens. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the notion that contact allergy may underlie the pathogenesis of OLL and that allergen avoidance may result in amelioration of disease.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".