Comparison of Patch Test Results With a Standard Series Among White and Black Racial Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Environmental, cultural, occupational, genetic, individual, and racial differences are important factors in the study of contact dermatitis. Some epidemiologic studies have compared overall sensitization rates among different racial groups, but similar data are lacking on individual allergens. Objective: Determine differences in sensitization rates between 2 racial groups in North America undergoing patch testing over a period of 4 years at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF), Ohio. Methods: Retrospective computer review of the standard screening tray results of 991 patients with an average age of 45.9 years consisting of 877 (88.5%) whites and 114 (11.5%) blacks. Results: Nickel sulfate and thiomersal (both 8.0%) and nickel sulfate andp-phenylenediamine (both 10.6%) were the 2 most common sensitizers among whites and blacks respectively. There was a statistically significant difference (P= .00599) in the sensitization rate forp-phenylenediamine in blacks (10.6%) compared with whites (4.5%). There were also statistically significant differences in sensitization rates forp-phenylenediamine (21.2%;P =.00005) and imidazolidinyl urea in petrolatum (pet.) (9.1%;P= .04103) in black men compared with white men (p-phenylenediamine [4.2%] and imidazolidinyl urea [2.6% pet.]). Conclusion: The differences in sensitization rates, especially forp-phenylenediamine, may reflect variations in allergen exposure among racial groups or interindividual variations in the N-acetylation (N-acetyltransferase 1 [NAT1] and 2 [NAT2]) capacities of human skin forp-phenylenediamine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".