Associated Positive Patch Test Reactions to Standard Contact Allergens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patch testing with a standard allergen series often yields positive reactions to more than 1 allergen in a patient. Objective: To identify all significantly associated pairs of positive reactions and to assess their relation to the strength of the reactions and to the irritative potential of the allergens. Methods: Based on the filed data of 57,822 patients, associations between positive reactions to 2 different allergens were quantified with odds ratios. Statistical methods included Fisher's exact test, the Bonferroni adjustment to account for the effect of multiple testing, and the Spearman rank correlation. Results: Out of the 32,779 patients with complete readings of 24 standard allergens, 7,501 had shown more than 1 positive reaction. Statistically significant associations were detected for 166 out of the 276 possible different combinations of 2 distinct positive reactions, including combinations that had not been identified before. Patients with a strong reaction or a positive reaction to an allergen with a high irritative potential tended to have additional positive reactions to further allergens more often than others, but the number of significant associations was not dependent on these parameters. Conclusion: There are more significant associations that have to be taken into account for patch testing than has been known so far. Although irritation can favor a higher number of positive reactions, significant associations of positive reactions to distinct allergens are probably caused by other mechanisms that require further analyses.
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".