Results of patch testing to the European Baseline Series in adult patients in Turkey: a five-year experience at a tertiary reference center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is increasing in frequency and has a negative impact on the quality of life.Patch testing is recommended, especially in treatment-resistant cases, atypical cases, workers with hand eczema, and before starting systemic treatment.Aim: To report the results of patients with ACD who underwent the European Baseline Series at our tertiary referral hospital.Material and methods: All patients diagnosed with ACD who underwent patch testing between 2018 and 2023 were included in the study.Results: Between January 2018 and May 2023, 383 patients aged over 18, underwent patch testing with the European Baseline Series (EBS).Of these, 216 (56.3%) patients underwent EBS, while 167 (43.7%) patients underwent the European Patch Series, consisting of 32 allergens applied in our clinic between April 2021 and June 2023.Nickel sulphate was the most common allergen with a positivity rate of 22% (85), followed by gold sodium thiosulfate at 7% (27), cobalt chloride at 6.8% (26), thiomersal and para-phenylenediamine at 4.7% (18), and potassium dichromate at 4.4% (17).In all years, patch test positivity was statistically higher in women than in men.Nickel sulphate and potassium dichromate were statistically significantly more positive in women and men, respectively.Wool wax alcohols, carba mix, cl-me-isothiazolinone, thiomersal positivity decreased over time, while colophony positivity increased significantly over time.Conclusions: In this study, although the allergens found positive in the European patch test at our reference hospital were similar to previous studies, it was noteworthy that they changed over time.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".