Patch Testing with Cobalt in Adults: A North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2001–2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cobalt is a recognized cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD); however, detailed information on patient characteristics, sites, and sources is lacking. Objective: The aim of the study is to assess trends in patch test reactions to cobalt and associated patient characteristics, common sources, and body sites affected. Methods: The study used a retrospective analysis of adult patients who were patch tested to cobalt by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group between 2001 and 2018 (n = 41,730). Results: Overall, 2986 (7.2%) and 1362 (3.3%) had allergic or currently relevant patch test reaction to cobalt, respectively. Patients with versus without an allergic patch test reaction to cobalt were more likely to be female, employed, have a history of eczema or asthma, be Black, Hispanic, or Asian, and have occupational-related dermatitis. The most commonly identified sources of cobalt in allergic patients included jewelry, belts, and cement, concrete, and mortar. Affected body site(s) varied by cobalt source among patients with currently relevant reactions. Occupational relevance was found in 16.9% of patients with positive reactions. Conclusions: Positive patch test reactions to cobalt were common. The most common body sites were the hands, and affected site varied by the source of cobalt.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".