Prevalence and trend of allergen sensitization in patients referred for patch testing with a final diagnosis of psoriasis: <scp>N</scp>orth <scp>A</scp>merican <scp>C</scp>ontact <scp>D</scp>ermatitis <scp>G</scp>roup data, 2001‐2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relationship between psoriasis and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). OBJECTIVE: To examine the associations with ACD, related clinical characteristics, and common positive and clinically relevant allergens of patients with a final diagnosis of psoriasis who were referred for patch testing. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 38 723 patients from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. RESULTS: Patients with a final diagnosis of psoriasis had lower proportions of ACD than those without psoriasis (32.7% vs 57.8%). In multivariable logistic regression models, psoriasis was inversely associated with female sex, Black or Asian race, and history of atopic dermatitis and hay fever. Patients with a final diagnosis of psoriasis were less likely to have one or more positive allergic patch-test reactions or to have a current clinically relevant patch-test reaction to the majority of the most commonly positive and/or relevant allergens. The most clinically relevant allergens included nickel sulfate, methylisothiazolinone, and fragrance mix I. CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of patients who were referred for patch testing with a final diagnosis of psoriasis were also diagnosed with ACD. In select patients with suspected psoriasis who also have a clinical presentation suggestive of ACD, patch testing may be helpful.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".