Toothpaste Allergy as a Cause of Cheilitis in Israeli Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergic contact cheilitis may appear after exposure to different substances, including dental materials, toothpastes, cosmetics, foods and medications. OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of toothpaste allergy between patients with and without cheilitis and to examine the yield of our proposed toothpaste patch test kit for use in patients with cheilitis. METHODS: A patch test kit containing 11 substances used in toothpastes was formed. The study sample consisted of 44 patients, 24 with cheilitis (study group) and 20 with contact dermatitis but without cheilitis (control group). RESULTS: Eleven patients in the study group (45%) were found to be allergic to toothpaste, compared to only one patient (5%) in the control group (p < .05). CONCLUSION: The rate of toothpaste allergy among patients with cheilitis might be higher than previously reported. Patch-testing with our toothpaste series is recommended in the evaluation of cheilitis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".