Black Rubber Sensitization by Bicycle Handgrips in a Child with Palmar Hyperhidrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Black rubber is mainly an occupational source of contact sensitization; however, several unusual causes of non-occupational black rubber allergy are reported in the literature. A 10-year-old nonatopic Turkish boy with palmar hyperhidrosis developed acute vesicular bilateral palmar dermatitis following 2 to 3 weeks of intensive use of a new bicycle. The handgrips of the bicycle were made of black rubber. Patch testing showed a strong positive reaction to N-isopropyl-N-phenyl-4-phenylenediamine (the main sensitizer in black rubber) and questionable papular reactions to pieces of the black rubber handgrip. Additional cross-sensitization was found to p-phenylenediamine. There was no previous contact with black rubber or with any material that would contain p-phenylenediamine (eg, black henna dye). In conclusion, this was an unusual pediatric case of non-occupational allergic contact dermatitis from N-isopropyl-N-phenyl-4-phenylenediamine in black rubber bicycle handgrips. The young age of the patient and the development of contact sensitization within a relatively short period were striking. The release of the sensitizer from black rubber and the skin penetration were possibly enhanced by continuous friction and the accompanying hyperhidrosis, suggesting that the black rubber bicycle handgrip was the primary source of sensitization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".