A Localized Flare of Dermatitis May Render Patch Tests Uninterpretable in Some Patients with Recently Controlled Widespread Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patch testing rarely is confounded by localized dermatitis induced in the area being tested (usually the back). Its occurrence renders the interpretation of patch tests impossible. OBJECTIVE: To review our experience of the circumstances in which this phenomenon occurs during patch testing. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with this phenomenon who underwent patch testing from January 1, 2002, through June 30, 2006. RESULTS: Of the 3,569 patients tested, 12 (0.34% [9 men and 3 women]) had development of this phenomenon. All patients previously had recent widespread dermatitis that was suppressed temporarily with topical corticosteroids and wet dressings at the time of patch testing. The period between control of the dermatitis and the initiation of patch testing was less than 1 week for all patients. Three patients (25%) had recently discontinued therapy with systemic corticosteroids (less than 1 week earlier). CONCLUSION: In patients with irritable skin either immediately after widespread dermatitis is controlled or after the cessation of systemic corticosteroid treatment, a flare of dermatitis induced by patch testing may render patch tests unreadable and therefore uninterpretable. To avoid this confounding occurrence, a waiting period between control of widespread dermatitis and initiation of patch testing is advised.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".