Patterns of Allergic Contact Dermatitis in African Americans in a Major Metropolitan Area Over a 10-Year Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differences in patterns of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) among underrepresented minority populations are not well studied. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate patterns of ACD in African American and White patch-tested patients in a distinct metropolitan area over a 10-year period. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 297 ACD patients patch tested from 2009 to 2019. Differences in allergen frequency, relevance, and sources of exposure were evaluated. Fisher exact test analyses were performed to examine these differences. RESULTS: Among 297 patients, 215 were White and 47 were African American. The most common sensitizers differed between the 2 groups. African American patients also reacted with statistically significant greater frequency to disperse dye blue (P = 0.019) and textile dye mix (P = 0.001). The most common source of positive patch tests for all patients was personal care products (72%). Occupational allergy was greater in African American male patients, and personal care product exposure was greater in White male patients (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the differing patterns of sensitization seen in African American and White patients. This is likely due to differences in personal care product use or occupational allergy. Additional studies with larger sample sizes are needed to expand upon these differences.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".