Contact Sensitization in Pediatric Population With Atopic Dermatitis: A Retrospective Study of 80 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of allergic contact dermatitis among children with atopic dermatitis (AD), the most common sensitizer, and the associated risk factors. METHODS: This retrospective study included children with AD who underwent patch testing at our dermatology department between 2005 and 2021. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included. The average age was 77.6 months (4 months-17 years), divided as follows: children (76.3%), infants (11.3%), and teenagers (10%). The sex ratio (M/F) was 1.35. Thirty-two patients (40%) had positive patch test results. Allergic contact dermatitis was significantly more frequent among patients with severe AD (40.6%) than among those with moderate or mild AD (16.7%, P = 0.017). The most frequent allergens were nickel sulfate (23.7%), cobalt chloride (12.5%), potassium dichromate (8.7%), textile dyes (6.2%), and lanolin (5%). CONCLUSIONS: Contact allergies are a common problem in children with AD. They seem to be at risk of sensitization to certain allergens mainly metals and components of skincare products. Patch testing should be performed whenever allergic contact dermatitis is suspected and in cases of severe AD.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".