Polysensitization and Individual Susceptibility to Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with allergic contact dermatitis to 1 antigen have been shown to be at increased risk of developing delayed type hypersensitivity reactions to additional antigens. Both environmental and genetic factors likely influence the risk of sensitization. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether polysensitization occurs at a higher frequency than would be expected based on chance and whether polysensitization occurs more often in subsets of patients with hand involvement and atopic dermatitis. METHODS: From a database of patch test results from a single practitioner, the probability of having positive reactions to 3 or more unrelated allergens was calculated under the assumption that positive reactions are independent and compared with the observed proportion having positive reactions to 3 or more unrelated allergens. The analysis was repeated excluding patients with leg involvement as a proxy for venous insufficiency dermatitis. The proportion of patients from the polysensitized and nonpolysensitized cohorts with either hand involvement or a history of atopic dermatitis was also calculated. CONCLUSIONS: Polysensitization occurs more often than expected based on chance. Polysensitized patients were more likely to have hand dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis was not significantly associated with polysensitization in this analysis. Polysensitized individuals may represent a phenotype with increased genetic susceptibility to sensitization.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".