MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200382435 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000806

Patch Test Positivity to Palladium

2021· article· en· W4200382435 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Consiglia Vergara, Paola De Michieli, Francesca Rui, Anna Belloni Fortina, Maria Teresa Corradin, Francesca Larese Filon

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAllergic contact dermatitisPatch testConfidence intervalSensitizationOdds ratioPatch testingContact dermatitisStatistical significanceDermatologyInternal medicineAllergyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The use of palladium (Pd) is increasing in metal objects after the banning of nickel in items in prolonged contact with the skin. The properties of Pd make this metal useful in various industrial fields. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of Pd sensitization in patients who underwent patch tests for suspected allergic contact dermatitis in the Triveneto region from 2013 to 2018. METHODS: A total of 4816 patients with symptoms and/or signs of suspected contact allergic dermatitis were patch tested. Individual characteristics were assessed using a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of Pd sensitization was 7.6% and 10.8% using PdCl2 1% or 2% petrolatum, respectively, with a higher prevalence in women (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-3.7) and in 26- to 55-year-old patients. Monosensitization occurred in 1%-1.5% of the patients tested. Health care workers and technicians were more sensitized to Pd than clerks, but the data did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Palladium sensitization was high, but it was mainly associated with nickel sensitization. A possible occupational role was found for workers with potential contact with Pd-containing objects, but more data are needed to reach statistical significance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207