Contact Sensitization of Older Patients in an Academic Department in Naples, Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact allergy develops in predisposed individuals as a consequence of environmental exposure to allergens. Exposure patterns change over time because of many factors (sex, age, occupation, fashion trends, official regulations), and the delayed hypersensitivity response depends significantly on the age of the subject. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of contact sensitization in older patients (older than 65 years) referred to our allergologic clinic. METHODS: All patients were patch-tested with the standard series of the Societè Italiana di Dermatologia Allergologica, Professionale e Ambientale, and 32 patients were also tested with additional series. RESULTS: Of 117 examined subjects, 48 (41%) developed at least one positive reaction whereas 22 of 117 (19%) showed more than one sensitization. Allergic contact dermatitis was detected in 13% of our sample. The five most frequent allergens were nickel sulfate (13.7%), potassium dichromate (11.1%), cobalt chloride (7.7%), para-phenylenediamine (5.2%), and balsam of Peru (4.3%). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest an age-dependent decline of overall positive patch-test reactions but a higher sensitization rate to some allergens.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".