Cross-sectional Survey of Nickel Allergy Management in the Context of Intracardiac Device Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The occlusion devices used for repair of atrial septal defect and patent foramen ovale commonly contain nitinol, an alloy containing nickel. There are reports of nickel allergy in the context of intracardiac device implantation. Type IV delayed-type reactions likely predominate in intracardiac metal hypersensitivity, but there are potentially other mechanisms such as cytotoxic or innate immunity. Based on available literature to date, the significance of nickel allergy in intracardiac occluders remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate nickel allergy management strategies in intracardiac occluders. METHODS: The American Contact Dermatitis Society facilitated distribution of a survey via e-mail to the members of its association, which included dermatologists and allergists/immunologists. A total of 70 individuals answered the survey. CONCLUSIONS: There was no consensus regarding the ability of patch testing to accurately determine allergic reactions within cardiac tissue. There was also no agreement on the criteria for patch testing in patients undergoing intracardiac implantation. However, most would inquire about a history of contact sensitivity to previously implanted devices. With a positive patch test, nickel-based intracardiac devices should be avoided, or the decision should be left to the discretion of the cardiologist.
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) | 0.000 | 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".