Allergic Contact Dermatitis in the Older Adults: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Background: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a significant health problem in older adults. Reports in the literature regarding the prevalence of ACD in older adults are various and inconsistent. In contrast, the data regarding contact irritant dermatitis are more consistent. Objective: To compare ACD characteristics in older adults versus the adult population aged 18–45 years. Methods: We conducted a retrospective controlled study. Data were obtained from the medical records of 4199 patients. We collected information regarding age, gender, atopic diathesis, anatomical distribution of the rash, reactions to patch tests, and final diagnosis. Results: The frequency of positive reactions in patch testing was lower in the older adult group than in the younger population, but the frequency of clinically relevant positive reactions was higher in the older adults. There was no statistically significant difference in the final diagnosis of ACD between the groups. The most common allergens among the older adult population were fragrance mix, preservatives (Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone [MCI/MI]), and nickel sulfate. Conclusion: This study, the first of its kind in Israel to include a large group of older adult patients, contributes to a better understanding of clinical parameters related to ACD among older adults. Consequently, it will hopefully contribute to lowering the disease burden.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".