MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518248382 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000223

<i>para</i> -Phenylenediamine Hypersensitivity: A Report From Budapest, Hungary, 2007–2014

2016· article· en· W2518248382 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Györgyi Pónyai, Brigitte Diczig, Ilona Németh, Erzsébet Temesvári

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHair dyesMedicinep-PhenylenediamineDermatologyEyebrowAllergenSensitizationAllergyDyeingSurgeryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207