Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Burning mouth syndrome (BMS) is a burning or sore mouth in the absence of changes in the oral mucosa. It is often difficult to diagnose and treat. Numerous theories of the etiology have been suggested, including contact allergy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical utility of patch testing in patients with BMS. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of patients diagnosed with BMS who had patch testing performed between January 1, 2008, and July 31, 2012. RESULTS: Of 142 consecutive patients with BMS, 132 consented to patch testing; 89 (67%) had allergic patch test reactions. Of the patients with positive results, 66 (74%) had results that were deemed to have possible relevance. The most common allergens detected were nickel sulfate 2.5%, dodecyl gallate 0.3%, octyl gallate 0.3%, fragrance mix 8%, benzoyl peroxide 1%, and cinnamic alcohol 1%. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that contact allergy may be an etiologic factor in some patients with BMS. Patch testing is a useful investigation for BMS patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".