Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients wearing a prosthesis face a wide variety of medical problems. Skin complications have long been recognized, but their prevalence is still unknown. The most frequently reported disorders are allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), acroangiodermatitis, epidermoid cysts, epidermal hyperplasia, follicular hyperkeratosis, verrucous hyperplasia, bullous diseases, hyperhidrosis, infections, malignancies, and ulcerations. Contact dermatitis represents one-third of the dermatoses in amputees wearing prostheses. All patients who are suspected of having ACD should be patch tested with standard allergen series as well as materials from the patient's own prosthesis, topical medicaments, moisturizers, and cosmetics. We report a patient with an ACD to mixed dialkyl thiourea present in the rubber parts of his below-the-knee prosthesis. Thiourea derivates are used as accelerators in the manufacture of chloroprene rubber and as fixatives in photography and photocopy paper. Allergy to thiourea is relatively uncommon; different studies have shown a prevalence of 0.7% up to 2.4% in patch-tested patients. Thiourea derivates are often the allergic sources in ACD involving high-grade rubber products made of neoprene such as diving suits, protective goggles, knee braces, and continuous positive airway pressure masks. They are also present in the rubber material of prostheses, as in the case of our patient.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".