Rate of Patch Test Reactions to a Dermatophagoides Mix Currently on the Market: A Mite Too Sensitive?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There long has been debate over the role of the dust mite antigenDermatophagoidesin provoking or perpetuating atopic and other forms of dermatitis, particularly airborne contact dermatitis. Reactivity toDermatophagoideshas been measured by specific IgE and by immediate-type responses to prick test challenge. More recently, patch testing has been advocated as a means of determining reactivity toDermatophagoides. Objective: To determine patch test reactivity to aDermatophagoidesmix in a population receiving patch testing. Methods: A commercially available mix of 2 species ofDermatophagoides, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinusandDermatophagoides farinae,recently became available. The authors chose the lower available concentration of this mix (20%) and added it to their standard patch testing tray between December 1999 and January 2001. Results were interpreted in the standard manner. Results: A total of 662 patients received patch testing toDermatophagoides(men 32%, women, 68%). Mean age was 53.4 years (range, 37 to 94). TheDermatophagoidesmix was the most common allergen in the standard tray to evoke a reaction. At 96 hours, positive reactions were noted in 55% of patients. The reactions were interpreted as irritant in 16.2%, relevant in 6.7%, of questionable relevancy in 30.5%, and of no relevancy in 32.6%. The majority of reactions were of the “crescendo” pattern. Conclusion: The currently available formulation ofDermatophagoidesmix, even at its lower concentration, led to a high rate of reactivity with a low rate of relevance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".