Contact dermatitis to incontinency pads in a (meth)acrylate allergic patient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors report a case of a 47-year-old woman who suffered a severe allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in the vulvar area after using Poise thin incontinency pads. She had a past history of ACD after the use of sculptured acrylic nails and after the installation of a dental crown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this report is to show the spectrum of (meth)acrylate allergy in one individual. METHODS: Patch testing of moistened inner and outer aspect of the pad was performed. We also patch tested with the North American Contact Dermatitis Group series of 50 allergens, the dentistry series, various catalysts and inhibitors used in acrylic resin systems, and some epoxy acrylates. RESULTS: Positive ACD reaction occurred to both sides of the pad, with the inner aspect being stronger than the outer aspect. There were also multiple (meth)acrylate allergies. CONCLUSION: This case shows a new potential source of allergy to (meth)acrylates.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".