Results of Photopatch Testing in Israel: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Background: There are limited data regarding photopatch testing (PPT) in Israel. Objectives: To investigate the prevalence of positive reactions and concurrent diagnosis of patients that underwent PPT in a single center in Israel. Methods: Retrospective cohort study that included all patients that were suspected of having contact dermatitis and underwent patch testing with the European baseline series (EBS) and additionally were selectively PPT with the Scandinavian/European baseline photopatch series in a tertiary medical center in Israel (2009–2023). Results: Of 5234 consecutive patients tested with the EBS, 78 (1.5%) underwent PPT. Overall, 23 (29.49%) patients demonstrated positive PPT results, and 13 (56.52%; 17 positive reactions, 12 different allergens) exhibited clinically relevant reaction and were diagnosed with photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD). Sunscreen-related allergens represented the most common relevant photoallergens (6 patients, 46.15%), with benzophenone-3 yielding positive and relevant results in 5 cases. The duration of symptoms was significantly ( P < 0.05) longer among 13 patients with relevant PPT reaction that were diagnosed with PACD (12.16 ± 12.44 years) compared with patients with irrelevant (4.86 ± 6.75 years) or negative results (5.29 ± 7.98 years). The most common final diagnosis was allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) (21 cases, 26.92%), followed by PACD (13 cases, 16.66%), nonspecific dermatitis (5 cases, 6.41%), or atopic dermatitis (4 cases, 5.13%). About half (48.71%) of patients had indeterminate or other diagnoses, including rosacea, solar urticaria, polymorphic light eruption, and collagen vascular disease. Conclusion: In this retrospective Israeli study, the prevalence of positive PPT was relatively high (29%); however, falls within the wide range of reported values. Sunscreen-related allergens, specifically benzophenone-3, were the most common culprit. Among PACD patients, time-to-diagnosis was significantly delayed compared to other patients. Although the final diagnosis was heterogenous, ACD was the most common type.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".