Relevance of Socioeconomic Status in Contact Dermatitis: Insights from a Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Background: The relevance of socioeconomic status (SES) on contact dermatitis (CD) occurrence has never been addressed. Objectives: We aimed to assess the SES profile of patients for whom patch-testing was requested and to correlate it with their contact sensitizations and diagnosis. Methods: This retrospective study included all patients patch-tested at our allergy unit between 2016 and 2021. The following were recorded: sex, age, referring physicians, atopy, body sites involved, conclusive diagnosis, patch-test reactions and SES, defined through a deprivation index. Results: Among the 1625 subjects included (69.7% females), 45.4% had at least one positive patch-test reaction, and 56.9% received a conclusive diagnosis of CD, including both allergic and irritant forms, of which 14% were occupational. CD occurrence, occupational versus nonoccupational CD, anatomical sites or referring physician were not significantly related to SES, while multiple positive reactions to patch-tests were more common among the highest SES group. Positive reactions to Myroxylon Pereirae or fragrance mix II were less recorded among the highest SES subjects. Conclusions: CD, either allergic CD or irritant CD, and skin sensitization appear to be transversal phenomena, not closely related to SES. Multiple sensitization, as well as sensitization to specific allergens may be affected by socioeconomic factors.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".