The Final Patch Test Read: Day 5 or Day >7?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A major question in patch testing is when to perform the final reading. Our current standard practice is to place patches on day 1, remove them on day 3, and perform readings on days 3 and 5. For certain allergens, another reading is performed sometime from days 7 to 14≥. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to identify allergens with positive reactions on day 5 that were negative on day 7 or later and allergens with negative reactions on day 5 that were subsequently positive on day 7 or later. METHODS: We reviewed records of patients who underwent patch testing from January 2007 to December 2016 at Mayo Clinic with readings on day 5 and day 7 or later. CONCLUSIONS: In total, 131 allergens had positive reactions on day 5 that were negative on day 7 or later, and 58 allergens had negative reactions on day 5 that were positive on day 7 or later. Twenty-five allergens had significantly higher reaction rates on day 5 than day 7 or later. Our standard practice is to perform readings on days 3 and 5 and on days 3, 5, and 7 or later for series containing metals. Readings on days 3, 5, and 7 or later should also be considered for acrylates.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".