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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
JiaDe Yu, Amber Reck Atwater, Bruce A. Brod, Jennifer K. Chen, Sarah S. Chisolm, David E. Cohen, Salma de la Feld, Anthony A. Gaspari, Kari Martin, Marjorie Montañez-Wiscovich, Michael P. Sheehan, Nanette B. Silverberg, Aída Lugo‐Somolinos, Binod K. Thakur, Kalman L. Watsky, Sharon E. Jacob

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207