Patch-Testing with the Standard Series at the Massachusetts General Hospital, 1998 to 2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnostic tool to detect allergic contact sensitization is patch testing. OBJECTIVE: Results of patch testing performed from January 1998 to December 2006 at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) are analyzed and compared to our 1990-1997 data as well as to data from North American and European contact dermatitis societies. METHODS: Data were collected from retrospective chart reviews and analyzed, focusing on the Hermal standard tray. RESULTS: The most common sensitizers were fragrance mix (18.3%) and nickel (16.7%). Significant increases over time were seen for balsam of Peru (p < .0005; CI, 1.34-2.76) and wool alcohols (p = .002; CI, 1.38-4.38) while gender-related statistical predominance was seen for nickel in females (p < .0005; CI, 2.92-8.20) and for epoxy resin in males (p < .0005; CI, 0.14-0.58). Our findings are similar to those of the North American and European contact dermatitis societies. The retrospective study sample was drawn from a selected group of referred patients that may not be representative of the general population. Analysis of data focused on the Hermal standard tray and might not reflect trends resulting from additional allergens in supplemental trays. CONCLUSION: Sensitization rates and the most important allergens at MGH have been stable over the past 17 years.
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".