MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809106576 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000385

Pediatric Baseline Patch Test Series: Pediatric Contact Dermatitis Workgroup

2018· article· en· W2809106576 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWorkgroupContact dermatitisPatch testAllergic contact dermatitisPatch testingTest (biology)DermatologyPediatricsFamily medicineAllergyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis is a challenging diagnostic problem in children. Although epicutaneous patch testing is the diagnostic standard for confirmation of contact sensitization, it is less used in children by dermatologists treating children, pediatric dermatologists, and pediatricians, when compared with adult practitioners. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to create and evaluate standardization of a pediatric patch test series for children older than 6 years. METHODS: We surveyed dermatologists and allergists conducting epicutaneous patch testing in children attending the 2017 American Contact Dermatitis Society meeting held in Washington, DC. This was followed by discussion of collected data and consensus review by a pediatric contact dermatitis working group at the conference. CONCLUSIONS: A baseline pediatric patch test panel was established through working group consensus.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it