A Pragmatic Approach to Patch Testing Atopic Dermatitis Patients: Clinical Recommendations Based on Expert Consensus Opinion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) may complicate the clinical course of atopic dermatitis (AD), and patch testing remains the criterion standard for diagnosing ACD. To date, there have been no guidelines or consensus recommendations on when and how to patch test individuals with AD. Failure to patch test when appropriate may result in overlooking an important and potentially curable complicating comorbidity. In this article, we present consensus recommendations regarding when to perform patch testing in the AD patient, best practices, and common pitfalls. Patch testing should be considered in AD patients with dermatitis that fails to improve with topical therapy; with atypical/changing distribution of dermatitis, or pattern suggestive of ACD; with therapy-resistant hand eczema in the working population; with adult- or adolescent-onset AD; and/or before initiating systemic immunosuppressants for the treatment of dermatitis. A suggested patch testing algorithm for AD patients is provided.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it