Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of TRUE TEST Panels 1.1, 2.1, and 3.1 in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous (TRUE) Test has approval for adults. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of TRUE Test panels 1.1, 2.1, and 3.1 in children and adolescents suspected of having allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). METHODS: An open-label prospective study was performed, analyzing 102 consecutive patients aged 6 to 18 years referred for suspected ACD, between December 2008 and October 2009. Patch tests were applied for 48 hours, and evaluations of skin reactions were conducted at days 3 and 7, with a follow-up visit 3 weeks after the initial applications. RESULTS: The mean age of all enrolled subjects was 11.6 years, and subjects included 52% females and 48% males. Positive reactions noted in more than 10% of the children were to nickel sulfate (29.7%), p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin (16.8%), wool alcohols (15.8%), fragrance mix (12.9%), and cobalt dichloride (12.9%). Of the 101 subjects, 77 (76.2%) tested positive to one or more of the 28 allergens. No meaningful differences were observed in the frequency or severity of adverse events; reports of burning and stinging following patch removal; or the frequency, intensity, or symptoms of persistent reactions when evaluated by age, sex, or race. CONCLUSION: Patch testing is efficacious and safe in the pediatric population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".