MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4290793955 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000922

The Patient Perspective

2022· article· en· W4290793955 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Malina Yamashita Peterson, Michelle Xiong, Melanie Ault, Liz Brodd, Kristi Harvey, Heather Meng, Sara Hylwa

Notice bibliographique

RevueDermatitis · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAllergic contact dermatitisMedicineClubContact dermatitisPatch testingDermatologyInternet privacyAllergyComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor: In the US, 3.5% of the population has allergic contact dermatitis to fragrance.1 Based on the North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, fragrances were the fourth most common allergen.2 It can be difficult to avoid fragrance, which are virtually ubiquitous in everyday products. Even products labeled as “unscented” or “fragrance-free” may still contain a fragrance. The Contact Allergen Management Program contains a list of fragrance-free products, but it is not comprehensive. Fragrance are also one of the most common causes of airborne contact dermatitis. However, patients have limited control over, or knowledge of, the products used in public environments. Experts have proposed using barrier creams that might prevent airborne allergens from contacting skin, but there have not been formal studies demonstrating their efficacy.3 Fragrance can restrict individuals from accessing the most necessary of locations, such as public restrooms. The pervasiveness of airborne fragrances in public can necessitate meticulous planning for each outing, and new places are even more of a challenge. “Every time I go to a new location, I have to inquire what products are used,” explained Ms Brodd, a patient with allergic contact dermatitis. “Sometimes, there are power dynamics in play, such as in the workplace, and I end up having to deal with my reaction.” Similarly, Ms Ault and a friend recently encountered difficulties with newly installed fragrance machines at a health club chain. The chain's leadership and the fragrance company provided similar statements that the fragrances are “safe” because their fragrance suppliers are part of the International Fragrance Association. The International Fragrance Association is a self-regulatory global representative body of the fragrance industry. Even with assistance from her dermatologist, the general manager of the club only agreed to unplug the scent machine 15 minutes before Ault's arrival. Is this a violation of the US Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? The ADA defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits 1 or more major life activities of such individual.”4 These major life activities can include caring for oneself, concentrating, and working. The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disabilities in employment, public services, and privately owned public accommodations. However, receiving a reasonable accommodation due to their disability is challenging for individuals with fragrance allergy. The solution may not be found in the courts, but in developing fragrance-free policies, which have started to gain momentum in businesses and institutions. A fragrance-free policy may be an equitable option for a business with a patron who has a fragrance allergy. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has prohibited fragranced products in “all interior space owned, rented, or leased” by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 2009.5 The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety provides useful fact sheets on how to implement scent-free policies.6 Steps to consider include the following: conducting an employee survey to assess the issue, creating a representative committee to draft a policy, providing education to all employees about the reasoning behind the policy, addressing concerns honestly, and being open to revision. Guidelines should stress that this policy applies to everyone and that fragrance-containing products are not limited to perfume and cologne. Other useful tips include posting a list of approved unscented products, reviewing ingredients of products used by your organization, and placing policy statement notices in visible areas. Malina Yamashita Peterson, BS Department of Dermatology Park Nicollet Health Services Minneapolis, MN University of Minnesota Medical School Minneapolis [email protected]Michelle Xiong, BS Department of Dermatology Park Nicollet Health Services Minneapolis, MN Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University Providence, RIMelanie Ault, BA, JD, MAPA, CAPALiz Brodd, BSKristi Harvey, BSN, RNHeather Meng, MA, BS, BA Contact Dermatitis Discussion Group Participant and AdvocateSara Hylwa, MD Department of Dermatology Park Nicollet Health Services Minneapolis, MN Department of Dermatology University of Minnesota Minneapolis

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,068
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,227

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0030,005
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0090,011
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0680,017

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,235
Écart entre enseignants0,226 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDermatitis→Même sujetContact Dermatitis and Allergies→Travaux en français237 207→