Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) of the vulva arises as a primary condition or develops secondary to topical agents. We aimed to describe the incidence of ACD in patients presenting with vulvar symptoms and to identify the allergens of most importance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a database of the patch testing results from 3 geographically distinct sites, we identified patients tested to a gynecologic series between 2003 and 2010. Patients had patch testing to the standard European battery and a gynecologic series. Patch testing was in line with accepted universal methods: application on day 1, allergen removal and initial reading on day 3, and final reading on day 5. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included. Thirty-five (39%) had a relevant positive result. The 5 allergens with the highest number of cases with a relevant reaction were natural fragrance mix 2%, balsam of Peru, benzocaine 5%, fragrance mix 8%, and quaternium 15 1%. The most common gynecologic series allergen to cause a relevant reaction was terconazole. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic contact dermatitis is a frequent finding in patients presenting with vulvar symptoms. We identified a relevant positive result to patch testing in 39%. We found fragrances, medicaments, and preservatives to be of most relevance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it