MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1828909203 · doi:10.5864/d2012-003

A narrative review of infections associated with personal service establishments Part II: Piercing and tattooing

2012· review· en· W1828909203 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Prabjit Barn, Tina Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Review · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTattoo and Body Piercing Complications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutbreakMedicineInfection controlPersonal hygienePersonal protective equipmentIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthInfectious disease (medical specialty)DiseaseVirologyFamily medicinePathologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In part II of our paper on personal service establishment services-related infections, we review bacterial, viral, and fungal infections related to piercing, tattooing, and body modification. Sixty-six studies were identified for piercing and tattooing-related viral and bacterial infections. No studies investigating fungal infections, or body modification service-related infections were identified. Bacterial infections, particularly, mycobacterium infections were commonly reported for piercing and tattooing, while viral risks were less well characterized, with the exception of tattooing related hepatitis B and C infections. Aside from localized infections at the pierced or tattooed site, a systemic infection involving the outer lining of the heart, infective endocarditis (IE), was also identified as an important health concern; those with pre-existing heart conditions are at highest risk of IE from invasive procedures. Both bacterial and viral outbreaks were linked to poor infection control procedures, and in two events, the use of municipal water to dilute tattoo ink was suspected as a source of mycobacteria leading to outbreaks of infection. The majority of studies identified were case reports; these studies provide only a limited understanding of infection pathways and do not allow for a quantitative estimation of risk. Despite important gaps in current knowledge, the available scientific literature can be used to support and inform the development of health-protective policies and practices in personal service establishments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health ReviewSame topicTattoo and Body Piercing ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207