MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414140072 · doi:10.2310/6620.2010.10036

Patch Testing in Atopic Dermatitis

2010· article· en· W2414140072 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susan Nedorost, Denise C. Babineau

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatology and Skin Diseases
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatch testPatch testingAtopic dermatitisDermatologyAntibioticsAllergyContact dermatitisImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Because atopic dermatitis (AD) patients differ from non-AD patients in immunologic responses (they lack β-defensins, are more likely to react to protein allergens, and are harder to experimentally sensitize to the nonprotein allergens), patch-test responses to commercially available patch test series may differ in AD patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare responses to conventional patch tests in AD and non-AD patients and to assess the importance of specific allergens in AD. METHODS: AD patients were strictly defined by history of childhood flexural dermatitis. Patients with active disease were routinely pretreated with systemic antistaphylococcal and antiyeast antibiotics before patch testing unless contraindicated. All final patch-test readings occurred at day 7. RESULTS: The overall number of positive patch-test results did not differ significantly in AD patients (n = 146) versus non-AD patients (n = 1,003). There was no significant increase in nickel sensitivity. There was a nonsignificant trend toward an increased number of positive patch-test reactions to tixocortol pivalate, Compositae mix, and propylene glycol in AD patients. CONCLUSION: In AD patients treated with antibiotics and systemic azoles before patch testing, the number of positive patch-test reactions is almost identical to that of non-AD patients. Patch-test reactions to components of topical medicaments may be more frequent in AD as compared to non-AD patients.

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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicDermatology and Skin DiseasesFrench-language works237,207