A 10-Year Review of p-Phenylenediamine Allergy and Related para-Amino Compounds at the Ottawa Patch Test Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: p-Phenylenediamine (PPD) is an important allergen; 5.0% of patients tested positive to PPD when patch-tested, according to the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. Hair dyes are the main source of exposure. OBJECTIVE: To assess the significance of PPD allergy at the Ottawa Patch Test Clinic. METHODS: We assessed the epidemiology of PPD allergies and determined the cross-reactivity with other para-amino compounds. Charts of patients visiting the Ottawa Patch Test Clinic between May 1997 and July 2009 were reviewed. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four patients were found to have a contact allergy to PPD; 75.4% were female, 24.6% were male, 13.4% were hairdressers, 18.7% had a history of atopy, 90.3% were sensitized by hair dye, 2.2% were sensitized by henna tattoos, and 7.5% were sensitized by other sources. Positive patch-test reactions to textile dyes were seen in 24.6%, 7.5% reacted to benzocaine, 6.0% reacted to sulfa drugs, 1.5% reacted to isopropyl-para-phenylenediamine, and 1.5% reacted to para-aminobenzoic acid. CONCLUSIONS: PPD is an important source of allergic contact allergy. Our results show a significant relationship of PPD with other related para-amino compounds.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.016 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".