MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2402816457 · doi:10.2310/6620.2008.07076

Contact Sensitization of Older Patients in an Academic Department in Naples, Italy

2008· article· en· W2402816457 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna Balato, Nicola Balato, Luisa Di Costanzo, Fabio Ayala

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSensitizationPatch testPotassium dichromateDermatologyAllergyContact dermatitisPatch testingImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207