Delayed Patch-Test Reading After 5 Days: An Update From the Mayo Clinic Contact Dermatitis Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patch-test readings after day 5 have previously been used to identify delayed reactions to metals and topical antibiotics. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to identify allergens for which late readings (beyond day 5) would be most valuable and to compare our results with our previous study on delayed patch-test readings. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 298 patients who underwent metal and corticosteroid series patch testing from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2013. Patch-test readings were conducted on days 3 and 5 and at least once sometime between days 7 and 14. All reactions were examined at each reading. CONCLUSIONS: These results were concordant with our previous findings that additional readings after day 7 are particularly useful for identifying reactions to metals (gold, cobalt, beryllium, palladium), specific preservatives (dodecyl gallate, propolis), and the topical antibiotic neomycin. New delayed reactions to bacitracin, p-phenylenediamine, and topical corticosteroids were not seen in this cohort.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".