The Association of Race/Ethnicity and Patch Test Results: North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1998–2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch tests patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to a broad series of screening allergens and publishes periodic reports. We have previously reported on the association of race and ethnicity with the rates of positive responses to standard patch test allergens. This report extends those observations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to report the North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch testing results from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2006, comparing the frequency of positive reactions between white and black subjects. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Standardized patch testing with 45 allergens was used at 13 centers in North America. χ analysis of results in black subjects as compared with whites was examined. RESULTS: A total of 19,457 patients were tested; 92.9% (17,803) were white and 7.1% (1,360) were black. The final diagnoses of ACD (whites, 45.9%; blacks, 43.6%) and irritant contact dermatitis (13.0%/13.3%) were similar in the 2 groups. The diagnosis of atopic dermatitis was less common in the white patients (8.9%) as compared with the black patients (13.3%). Positive patch test reactions rates were similar for most allergens. However, statistically, blacks reacted more frequently to p-phenylenediamine (7.0% vs 4.4%, P < 0.001), bacitracin (11.6% vs 8.3%, P = 0.0004), as well as specific rubber accelerators mercaptobenzothiazole (2.7% vs 1.8%), thiuram (6.2% vs 4.3%), and mercapto mix (1.9% vs 0.8%, P < 0.001). Whites had an increase in positive reactions to fragrances (12.12% vs 6.77%, P < 0.0001), formaldehyde (9.25% vs 5.45%, P < 0.0001), and some formaldehyde releaser preservatives used in personal care products and textile resins (9.80% vs 6.18%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: There were statistically different rates of positive patch test reactions to specific allergens between black and white patients suspected of having ACD. The etiology of these differences is unclear but probably relates to culturally determined exposure patterns rather than genetic differences.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".