Dubiously Doubtful: An Exploration of the Literature Concerning Doubtful, Macular Erythema, “?+,” and “+/−” Patch Test Reactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the final patch test reading is barely discernable, it is termed a doubtful, macular erythema, "?+," or "+/-" reaction (hereby referred to as doubtful reaction). Information is conflicting about how to interpret doubtful reactions. Many guidelines do not comment on how to approach doubtful reactions; others state that further evaluation can (not should) be performed. In clinical reports, some investigators regard them as positive allergic reactions; some, as positive under certain circumstances; and many, as negative. Indeed, 16 (84%) of 19 recent reports of patch test reactions to standard/baseline series considered doubtful reactions negative for purposes of the report and did not include the number of these reactions. The problem is that these reactions are common and are not infrequently relevant. We recommend that researchers include frequency of doubtful reactions in reports and that doubtful reactions be assessed with the same scrutiny as stronger allergic reactions in the clinical setting.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".