Screening for Gold Sensitization in Consecutive Eczema Patients: Prevalence, Relevance, and Sources of Exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the 1990s, gold has been recognized as an important contact allergen. OBJECTIVES: Based on our results with gold sodium thiosulfate (GST) in the TRUE Test patch test system in the baseline series, the aims of the study were to evaluate baseline testing with gold salts worldwide and to discuss relevance. METHODS: Patients with positive patch test reactions to GST were questioned on exposure at day 7 reading. RESULTS: In a 1-year period, 89 (18.5%) of 480 patients tested positive to GST, making this the most frequent contact allergy. The 89 patients comprised 18 males and 71 females. The reaction was considered relevant in 21%; this is a minimum figure because 2 patients were withdrawn because of unknown relevance and because clinical features suggestive of gold contact allergy at distant sites, such as the face, were not taken into account. Altogether, 88% had been exposed. Worldwide, the prevalence of gold sensitization ranges between 0.78% and 30.7%, and relevance, in larger studies, has been between 15% and 20% of patients. The use of earrings and the presence of dental gold were important sources of exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Because it may be difficult to diagnose gold allergy, screening may be recommended when history taken suggests gold exposure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".