Prevalence of Contact Allergy to Nickel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No recent studies reporting nickel sensitivity prevalence in Canadians exist. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to quantify nickel sensitivity prevalence in patients at a patch test clinic in Vancouver. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 3263 patients patch tested for nickel sensitivity at our clinic in Vancouver between 2008 and 2020. RESULTS: In total, 24.3% (n = 792 of 3263) of patients were sensitive to nickel. Nickel sensitivity significantly increased over time from 24.3% to 27.9% from 2008 to 2020. Nickel-sensitive patients were significantly more likely to be women (P < 0.001), between the ages of 19 and 64 years (P = 0.010), and have dermatitis affecting the face (P = 0.001) and hands (P = 0.001). Nickel-sensitive patients were significantly less likely to be 65 years or older (P = 0.001) and have dermatitis affecting the legs (P = 0.002). Approximately half of nickel-sensitive reactions were new positive reactions at the second reading. CONCLUSIONS: Nickel sensitivity occurred in approximately one quarter of patients and significantly increased over time. Nickel-sensitive patients were more likely to be women, aged 19 to 64 years, and have dermatitis affecting the face and hands; and less likely to be 65 years or older and have dermatitis affecting the legs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".