Patch Testing with Formaldehyde 2.0% (0.60 mg/cm <sup>2</sup> ) Detects More Contact Allergy to Formaldehyde Than 1.0%
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The International Contact Dermatitis Research Group increased the patch test concentration of formaldehyde from 1.0% aqueous (aq) to 2.0% aq (in 2011). OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to investigate the outcome of the decision. METHODS: Consecutive dermatitis patients in 8 different clinics were patch tested with formaldehyde 1.0% aq and 2.0% aq. The test solutions were applied with a micropipette to the filter paper discs in the respective chamber. RESULTS: A total of 2778 patients were tested with 1.0% aq and 2766 to 2.0% aq. Sixty-five patients (2.3%, calculated from 2766 tested, to 2.0% aq) had positive patch test reactions interpreted as contact allergy to formaldehyde. This is a rather low frequency. Of these 65, 46 were women (46/1703 [2.7%]) and 19 were men (19/1063 [1.8%]). Thirty-six reacted only to 2.0% aq, 21 patients reacted to both concentrations, and 8 patients reacted only to 1.0% aq. Significantly, more patients reacted to 2.0% aq compared with 1.0% aq (P < 0.001). There was no significant sex difference. A total of 0.8% irritant reactions were recorded to formaldehyde 2.0% aq and 0.1% to 1.0% aq. CONCLUSIONS: The increased formaldehyde patch test concentration to 2.0% aq revealed more formaldehyde contact allergy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".