Gold Allergy in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the prevalence of allergic reactions to gold among patients tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) from 1996 to 1998. Methods: This is a prospective analysis of patch test results from the 12 centers that comprise the NACDG. Gold was tested as gold sodium thiosulfate (0.5% in petrolatum [pet]), along with 49 other screening allergens, in patients presenting with possible contact dermatitis. Results: Of 4,101 patients tested, 388 (9.5%) had a positive patch test result to gold. Women accounted for 62.8% of the subjects tested and 90.2% of patients positive to gold (P < .0001). The most common sites of dermatitis in gold-allergic patients were the hands (29.6%), face (19.3%), and eyelids (7.5%). Nickel and cobalt allergies, respectively, also were present in 33.5% and 18.3% of gold allergic individuals, as compared with 14.2% and 9.0% of the total population. Gold was the only positive reaction in 15.2% of the 388 patients. Conclusion: Gold is a more common allergen than previously reported and might cause facial and eyelid dermatitis. Hypersensitivity to gold is statistically linked to female gender and to allergic reactions to nickel and cobalt.
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) | 0.001 | 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".