Diagnostic Screening for Contact Allergy to Mercaptobenzothiazole Derivatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A patch test with an allergen mix used as screening test should be highly sensitive so that allergic patients are not missed. A previous analysis based on patch test data from 1990 to 1993 has shown that the mercapto mix lacked sensitivity. Chemical analyses on the stability of the mix components led to a new composition of the mix in 1995. Methods: The authors analyzed retrospectively patch test data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology to evaluate the sensitivity of the newly formulated mercapto mix and mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT) for detecting contact allergies to the 3 MBT derivatives contained in the present mix. Results: The new mercapto mix had a sensitivity of only 0.60, whereas MBT had a significantly higher sensitivity of 0.69. However, even this means that more than 30% of the patients allergic to MBT derivatives are missed. The combination of MBT and mercapto mix had a sensitivity of 0.77 for detecting contact allergies to the MBT derivatives. Conclusion: The German Contact Dermatitis Research Group decided to test both mercapto mix and MBT within the standard series, and to apply the 3 single components of the mix in case of a positive reaction to the mix or MBT.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".