North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2009 to 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for determination of substances responsible for allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: This study reports the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2010. METHODS: At 12 centers in North America, patients were tested in a standardized manner with a screening series of 70 allergens. Data were manually verified and entered into a central database. Descriptive frequencies were calculated, and trends were analyzed using χ2 statistics. RESULTS: A total of 4308 patients were tested. Of these, 2614 (60.7%) had at least 1 positive reaction, and 2284 (46.3%) were ultimately determined to have a primary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. Four hundred twenty-seven (9.9%) patients had occupationally related skin disease. There were 6855 positive allergic reactions. As compared with the previous reporting period (2007-2008), the positive reaction rates statistically decreased for 20 allergens (nickel, neomycin, Myroxylon pereirae, cobalt, formaldehyde, quaternium 15, methydibromoglutaronitrile/phenoxyethanol, methylchlorisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, potassium dichromate, diazolidinyl urea, propolis, dimethylol dimethylhydantoin, 2-bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol, methyl methacrylate, ethyl acrylate, glyceryl thioglycolate, dibucaine, amidoamine, clobetasol, and dimethyloldihydroxyethyleneurea; P < 0.05) and statistically increased for 4 allergens (fragrance mix II, iodopropynyl butylcarbamate, propylene glycol, and benzocaine; P < 0.05). Approximately one quarter of tested patients had at least 1 relevant allergic reaction to a non-NACDG allergen. Hypothetically, approximately one quarter of reactions detected by NACDG allergens would have been missed by TRUE TEST (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark). CONCLUSIONS: These results affirm the value of patch testing with many allergens.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".