Relevance of Doubtful (“Equivocal”) Late Patch-Test Readings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Doubtful late patch-test readings are often not considered clinically relevant. As a result, allergens with doubtful late readings may not be disclosed to the patient, and relevant allergens may not be avoided. We hypothesize that doubtful late reactions at a day 7 reading may be relevant. OBJECTIVE: We compared the patients' assessments of relevance to the strength of reaction at the final reading 168 hours after patch test application to determine if doubtful late patch-test reactions are relevant. METHODS: Four hundred seven subjects who underwent patch testing from January 2005 to February 2008 were mailed a survey asking if their dermatitis was more than 80% better than before patch testing and whether they needed to avoid each of their positive patch-test allergens to remain free of dermatitis. Clinical charts of respondents who indicated their dermatitis was more than 80% improved were reviewed for strength of patch-test response at day 7 for each positive patch-test result, which was then compared to the patients' assessments of relevance formulated by the investigators' interpretation of the survey. RESULTS: On the basis of survey interpretation, 63% of negative (0) late readings, 79% of doubtful (?+) late readings, 85% of + late readings, 84% of ++ late readings, and 100% of +++ late readings were considered relevant. CONCLUSION: Study limitations included small sample size, lack of formal validation of questionnaire, and response bias. However, based on the patients' assessments of relevance, allergens with doubtful late reactions were considered relevant almost as frequently as were allergens with + late readings.
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) | 0.001 | 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".