Effect of Patch Testing on the Course of Allergic Contact Dermatitis and Prognostic Factors That Influence Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has been shown to adversely affect the quality of life of patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to study the effect of patch test on the severity of dermatitis, the quality of life of patients, and the prognostic factors influencing the outcome. METHODS: The study included 111 patients patch tested with the preliminary diagnosis of ACD. Patients with clinically relevant positive patch test reactions were included in the ACD group. All patients were assessed with the Investigator Global Assessment and the Dermatology Quality of Life Index before and 6 months after patch testing. RESULTS: At the sixth-month control, more significant regressions in the mean Investigator Global Assessment and Dermatology Quality of Life Index scores were noted in the ACD group. The allergens were correctly remembered by 75% of the patients. The improvement was more significant in patients with ACD who correctly remembered the allergens and made appropriate lifestyle changes. Multiple allergen positivity was identified as a poor prognostic factor. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of patch test on the prognosis of contact dermatitis depends not only on providing necessary information to patients but also on the number of positive reactions, patient's ability to recall the allergens, how much the avoidance was achieved, and patient-related factors such as sex.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".