Patch Testing With an Extended Metal Allergen Series at the Massachusetts General Hospital (2006–2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reports of patch test data with an extended metal series that includes rare metals are limited. OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were to analyze and report patch testing results from an extended metal series, examine associations with sex and age, and highlight concomitant metal reactions. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of 150 patients referred for suspected metal allergy from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. RESULTS: The most common indications for evaluation referral were those having symptoms after implantation of a metal device (55.3%) and those with a history and concern of metal allergy before implantation of a metal device (22.0%). One or more positive patch test reactions were observed in 87 patients (58.0%). Metals with the highest frequencies were nickel sulfate 2.5% (26.2%), gold sodium thiosulfate 0.5% (23.0%), gold sodium thiosulfate 2.0% (20.7%), palladium chloride 2.0% (19.6%), cobalt chloride 1.0% (12.0%), and manganese chloride 2.0% (10.1%). Of the 45 metals tested, 15 caused no patch test reactions. Female patients were more likely to be sensitized to nickel, gold, and palladium (P < 0.05). Younger patients (≤40 years) had higher reaction rates to nickel, mercury, palladium, and cobalt. Concomitant reactions of the top metals (nickel, palladium, gold, and cobalt) were statistically associated bidirectionally (P < 0.05), except for cobalt and gold. CONCLUSIONS: Allergy to metals, including those not included in standard series, may be more prevalent than previously suspected. Results may help guide future testing for suspected metal allergy, although future studies are warranted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.004 | 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 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".