Expanding Patch Testing Beyond the Baseline Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Testing cosmetics and their ingredients is essential to avoid missing relevant allergens and to monitor fluctuating incidence of hypersensitivity. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review the usefulness of patch testing with a customized antimicrobials, vehicles, and cosmetics (AVC) series over 15 years at a single Canadian site. METHODS: Between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2019, patients suspected of having cosmetics allergy were patch tested with a 40-allergen AVC series in addition to the North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard screening series. We reviewed the patch test results of 2868 patients. RESULTS: We consecutively patch tested with the baseline series 6103 patients, of which 2868 (47%) were also tested with the AVC series. Of 53 different allergens that were tested at some point, 26 remained in the series throughout the 15-year span. The most common positive allergens were thimerosal (4.52%), polyvidone-iodine (2.25%), propolis (2.06%), sodium metabisulfite (1.94%), dodecyl gallate (1.53%), carmine (1.10%), lauryl glucoside (1.01%), sandalwood oil (0.7%), and tert-butylhydroquinone (0.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the expansion of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard screening series has decreased the yield from the AVC series from 21.1% to 13.9%, it still remains a useful adjunct for patients suspected of having cosmetics or disinfectants 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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".