A Retrospective Study of Aimed Patch Testing With Aqueous Nickel Sulfate Hexahydrate at 30% and 15% in Patients With Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sometimes, patients with a history of metal intolerance react negatively or doubtfully to nickel at patch testing. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate whether aqueous nickel sulfate hexahydrate at 15% and 30% traces more contact allergy than the nickel preparation in the baseline series at 5%. METHODS: In the period 1995-2015, more than 800 of 16,059 patients with a negative or doubtful patch test reaction to the petrolatum preparation of nickel at 5% on the day 3 reading were additionally tested with aqueous nickel at 15% and/or 30%. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study with aimed patch testing with aqueous nickel solutions, significantly more (P < 0.001) contact allergy was obtained as compared with the 5% preparation in petrolatum. The 30% solution was significantly better (P < 0.001) than the 15% solution. To demonstrate that patch testing with nickel at 15% or 30% is better than the present testing with 5% requires simultaneous testing with the 3 nickel preparations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".