Contact Allergy to Polymyxin B Among Patients Referred for Patch Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGOUND: Polymyxin B is not included in most standard contact allergen series. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of contact sensitization to polymyxin B in a population of patients referred for patch testing. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study design was used to collect data on 795 patients referred to the contact dermatitis clinic of the McGill University Health Centre, as well as to the office of one of the authors (L.M.), between March 2014 and November 2015. Patients were patch tested to the North American Contact Dermatitis Group baseline series and polymyxin B sulfate 3% in petrolatum. RESULTS: Out of 795 tested individuals, 18 were allergic to polymyxin B, for a prevalence of 2.3%. The eruptions affected almost all body parts, but mostly the face. The degree of reaction ranged from 1+ to 2+. Isolated reactions to polymyxin B occurred in 9 (50%) patients, whereas reactions to bacitracin and polymyxin B were seen in the other 9. Only 1 patient reacted to bacitracin, polymyxin B, and neomycin (11.1%). Most reactions (12/18) were from past exposure to polymyxin B. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic reactions to polymyxin B are not rare, and this antibiotic warrants inclusion in the standard patch testing series.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".