Patch Testing: The Patient Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Data regarding patient-reported symptoms during patch testing are limited. Objective To provide frequency of symptoms (pain, sleep difficulty, medication need, site itching, itch elsewhere, and worsening rash) experienced by patients undergoing extensive patch testing and to determine association of these symptoms with patient characteristics. Methods This was a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent patch testing at a tertiary referral, contact dermatitis clinic over 15 months. Demographics, number of patches placed, patch location(s), and number of reactions (total and ++/+++) were extracted by chart review. Frequency of symptoms reported on a questionnaire administered at the 48-hour (48H) and final (F) visits was tabulated, and associations were evaluated using χ2 and Fisher exact tests. Results Six hundred forty-one patient records were accessed. The most common symptom was patch site itching (48H, 77.4%; F, 76.5%). Frequency of pain and sleep difficulty were significantly higher at 48H compared with F (P < 0.0001). Worsening of rash was significantly higher at F compared with 48H (P < 0.0001). The number of patches was significantly associated with all symptoms except sleep difficulty (P ≤ 0.0141). Patch location was significantly associated with pain, medication need, itch elsewhere, and worsening rash but not sleep difficulty or site itch (P ≤ 0.0257). The number of reactions (total and ++/+++) was significantly associated with all symptoms except itch elsewhere (total P ≤ 0.0316; ++/+++: P ≤ 0.0445). Conclusions Most patients reported symptoms during patch testing, most commonly itching (at patch site and elsewhere), sleep difficulty, and need for medication. The number of positive patch test reactions (total and ++/+++) was the most common characteristic associated with the symptoms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".