An 8-Year Retrospective Review of Patch Testing with Rubber Allergens: The Mayo Clinic Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis from rubber chemicals is increasingly recognized. OBJECTIVE: To review the results of patch testing with rubber allergens from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2007. METHODS: Patients who underwent patch testing with a specialized series of rubber allergens were identified. RESULTS: In total, 773 patients (64.2% female; mean age, 48.6 years) were patch-tested with a rubber series (27 allergens), and 739 (95.6%) were concomitantly patch-tested with a standard allergen series. Commonly affected sites of dermatitis were the hand (49.7%), foot (15.9%), leg (12.0%), and arm (10.9%). The most common occupations were health care worker (16.3%) and homemaker (6.5%); 11.3% were retired. The rate of allergic reaction to at least one rubber allergen was 245 of 773 (31.7%). The allergens that most commonly yielded positive reactions were 4,4-dithiodimorpholine 1% (28/286 [9.8%]), thiuram mix (56/739 [7.6%]), and diphenylguanidine 1% (57/759 [7.5%]). CONCLUSION: Rubber is a frequent cause of allergic contact dermatitis. Patch testing with a rubber series improved the ability to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis caused by rubber.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".