Usefulness of Patch Testing With Patient's Own Products in the Diagnosis of Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The usefulness of using patient's own products in patch tests for the diagnosis of allergic contact eczema is well known. However, most of the literature is based on case series published decades ago, and they are focused on cosmetics and fragrances. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the usefulness of using patient's own products in patch tests for the diagnosis of contact eczema in a contact dermatitis unit, describing the most frequently positive own products, as well as the most frequently responsible allergens. METHODS: In a 17-year period, 3514 patients were patch tested in our department. In 2429 patients, patch testing with the patients' own products was performed. RESULTS: We found that 363 patients (10.33%) reacted to their own products. In 131 cases (3.81%), reacting to their own product was the only clue for detecting the responsible allergen for allergic contact eczema. Most reactions were found for topical medications, moisturizers, and adhesives. Fragrance mix I, methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone, ketoprofen, and colophony were found to be the allergens most often responsible. CONCLUSIONS: It is essential to include patient's own products in the study of allergic contact eczema to make a correct diagnosis. In our series, 3.81% of the patients would not have been correctly diagnosed if their own products had not been included in patch tests.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".