Update on Contact Sensitization in the Older Adult Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the epidemiology of allergic contact dermatitis in the aging US population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe patch test results in a cohort of older adult patients evaluated in a patch testing clinic in a tertiary medical center. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of patch test results of adults 65 years and older from February 2013 to December 2019. RESULTS: Data from a total of 169 patients 65 years and older were analyzed. Of these patients, 84.6% (143/169) had 1 or more positive reactions on patch testing, 84.6% (121/143) of which were felt to be clinically relevant and received a final diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. The most common allergen categories were fragrances (30.1%), preservatives (20.8%), metals (11.0%), medicaments (8.3%), and textile dyes (6.5%). The most common individual allergens were Myroxylon pereirae resin (balsam of Peru), hydroperoxide of linalool, methylisothiazolinone, nickel sulfate, and fragrance mix I. Personal products were by far the most common presumed source of allergen exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic contact dermatitis is a common diagnosis in the older adult population, and patch testing with allergen avoidance counseling can be an important diagnostic step and potential cure for this allergic condition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".