The Utility of the TRUE Test in a Private Practice Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Studies suggest that the Thin-Layer Rapid-Use Epicutaneous Test (TRUE Test) may be inadequate to completely diagnose a significant number of patients with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Methods:A retrospective chart review of patients who were patch-tested with the TRUE Test between July 1, 2000, and June 30, 2004, in four private dermatology practices was conducted. Results:Of the 183 patients evaluated, 50.8% had at least one positive reaction, 31.7% had a diagnosis of ACD, and 24.0% were suspected to have ACD from other allergens. Of the patients with positive reactions, 62.4% were determined to have reactions that were of present relevance. Conclusions:The TRUE Test allows patients with dermatitis to be triaged systematically in a private practice setting. It is important to supplement patch testing with the patients' personal products, especially in cases of facial or periorbital dermatitis, and to be aware of potential false negatives, particularly with fragrance and rubber additives.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".