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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".