MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135061141 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000729

North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results: 2017–2018

2021· article· en· W3135061141 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joel G. DeKoven, Jonathan I. Silverberg, Erin M. Warshaw, Amber Reck Atwater, Margo J. Reeder, Denis Sasseville, James S. Taylor, Kathryn A. Zug, D. Belsito, Howard I. Maibach, Melanie D. Pratt, Mathias CGT, Vincent A. DeLeo, Joseph F. Fowler

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of OttawaMontreal General HospitalUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatch testAllergenContact dermatitisConfidence intervalAllergic contact dermatitisDermatologyPatch testingAllergyInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patch testing is an important diagnostic tool for assessment of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). OBJECTIVE: This study documented the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) patch testing results from March 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018. METHODS: At 14 centers in North America, patients with dermatitis were tested in a standardized manner with a screening series of 70 allergens and supplemental allergens as clinically indicated. Data were manually verified and entered into a central database. Descriptive statistics were estimated, and trends were analyzed using χ2 test. RESULTS: Overall, 4947 patients were tested. There were 3235 patients (65.4%) who had at least 1 positive reaction and 2495 patients (50.4%) had a primary diagnosis of ACD. Five hundred eighty-one patients (11.7%) had occupationally related dermatitis. There were 10,122 positive patch test reactions. Nickel remained the most commonly detected allergen (16.2%), followed by methylisothiazolinone 0.2% aqueous (15.3%) and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 0.02% aqueous (200 ppm, 11.0%). Compared with the previous reporting periods (2015-2016 and 2007-2016), the proportion of positive reactions for the top 20 screening allergens statistically increased for only 1 allergen, propolis (3.4%; risk ratios = 2.05 [confidence interval = 1.66-2.54] and 1.82 [confidence interval = 1.57-2.11]).Four newly added allergen preparations, hydroperoxides of linalool (8.9%), benzisothiazolinone (7.3%), sodium metabisulfite (2.7%), and hydroperoxides of limonene (2.6%), all had a prevalence of greater than 2%. Approximately 1 (19.7%) in 5 tested patients had 1 or more clinically relevant reactions to an allergen not on the NACDG screening series; 13.2% of these were occupationally related. T.R.U.E. TEST (SmartPractice Denmark, Hillerød, Denmark) would have hypothetically missed 30% to 40% of reactions detected by the NACDG screening series. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the importance of a regularly updated screening allergen series. Methylisothiazolinone continues to be a significant allergen in North America. Patch testing with allergens beyond a screening tray is necessary for complete evaluation of occupational and non-occupational ACD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations108
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207