Allergen Content of Patient Problem and Nonproblem Gloves: Relationship to Allergen-Specific Patch-Test Findings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identification of putative contact allergen and source material is often done by a combination of patch testing and manufacturer-supplied product information. The accuracy of the identification of allergen-source material and level of allergen in that allergen-source material is not known. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study were to survey the chemical allergen content of glove allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) patient-identified problem and nonproblem gloves and to evaluate the ability of the patient to discriminate between problem and nonproblem gloves. METHODS: Gloves from patch-tested rubber allergen-positive ACD patients were analyzed for species and amount of rubber allergen. RESULTS: Approximately half the subjects were able to correctly identify their problem and nonproblem gloves. Correct association of a glove with ACD was directly related to patch-test reaction severity and inversely related to the number of glove brands being used by the patient. Of note, thiurams were not detected in any of the gloves examined. CONCLUSIONS: Although patch testing is invaluable in identifying individual allergen sensitivities, the identification of the ACD-causative specific chemical allergen and source material remains problematic. All glove brands used within days prior to and during an ACD episode should be considered potential sources of the contact allergen.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".