MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980386537 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000530

Patch Test Results of Contact Sensitization in Children without Atopic Dermatitis: A Single Tertiary Center Experience

2019· article· en· W2980386537 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Selcen Kundak

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatch testSensitizationDermatologyPatch testingCenter (category theory)Atopic dermatitisTest (biology)Single CenterAllergic contact dermatitisContact dermatitisAllergyImmunologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) has become more frequent in children. The prevalence of contact sensitization varies with respect to age, sex, and geographic localization. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the experience of a tertiary health center regarding the patch test results of contact sensitization in children without atopic dermatitis. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 89 children (30 boys and 59 girls) who were aged between 3 and 18 years and who were diagnosed with ACD between July 2013 and July 2017. Children with a known history of atopic dermatitis were excluded. All patients were tested with the TRUE (Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous) test series. RESULTS: The most frequently determined allergens by TRUE test were methylchloroisothiazolinone (n = 7 [16.3%]), disperse blue 106 (n = 5 [11.6%]), and bacitracin (n = 5 [11.6%]). Formaldehyde-related allergens produced 15 positives. CONCLUSIONS: Preservatives, such as methylchloroisothiazolinone, formaldehyde, and formaldehyde releasers, emerge as the most frequent allergens in children who undergo patch testing because of ACD. This finding might be attributed to the increase in the utilization of these chemical compounds in personal hygiene products for children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207