MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W189738974 · doi:10.2310/6620.2011.11008

Black Rubber Sensitization by Bicycle Handgrips in a Child with Palmar Hyperhidrosis

2011· article· en· W189738974 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Esen Özkaya, Meryem Sevinç Elinç‐Aslan

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNatural rubberSensitizationAllergic contact dermatitisDermatologyCarbon blackAnaphylaxisAllergyHyperhidrosisComposite materialImmunologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207