<i>para</i> -Phenylenediamine Hypersensitivity: A Report From Budapest, Hungary, 2007–2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: para-Phenylenediamine (PPD) is a potent allergen with frequent exposure through use of hair dyes or henna tattoos. OBJECTIVES: We wished to determine if prevalence of PPD sensitivity is changing through time as trends in its use change. PATIENTS: A total of 3631 patients were patch tested consecutively with the environmental standard series between 2007 and 2014 to map the prevalence of PPD sensitivity and its distribution according to age, sex, and diagnosis. RESULTS: Two hundred nine patients (5.75%) were proven to be PPD sensitive. Most PPD-sensitive patients were approximately in their 60s in 2007, whereas in 2014, they were in their 20s and 30s. In 2014, 61.1% of the patients were younger than 35 years and 50% were younger than 25 years. Of 209 PPD-sensitive patients, 32.5% had present relevance related to hair dyeing and eyebrow or eyelash coloring procedures. All affected male patients were hairdressers. Adverse reaction to henna was detected in only 1 case after henna hair dye use. CONCLUSIONS: The 5.75% prevalence of PPD sensitization in our study was higher compared with that in the European data. It is alarming that PPD hypersensitivity occurred even among teenagers. This may be mainly explained by hair dyeing at an early age.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".