MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contact Allergy to a Cocobolo Bracelet

2005· article· en· W1971412883 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marta Maria Moratinos, Elena Tévar, Luis Condé‐Salazar

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact allergyPatch testingContact dermatitisSawdustMedicineAllergenCross reactionsAllergic reactionComposite materialAllergic contact dermatitisDermatologyVarnishErythemaPatch testPulp and paper industryAllergyMaterials scienceCoatingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tropical woods are highly valued because of their strength, hardness, and resistance to moisture. These characteristics make them easy to work with and extremely durable, and that is why they have been used in the manufacture of wooden jewelry, musical instruments, furniture, and handles of many different objects. We present a case of a 44-year-old man who developed pruritus, erythema, and blistering around his right wrist, corresponding exactly to the area where he had worn a wooden bracelet. Thin-layer chromatography performed with the extract of the shavings revealed (R)-4-methoxydalbergione and obtusaquinone (the main components of cocobolo wood) and (S)-4'-hydroxy-4-methoxydalbergione (in lower amounts). Patch-testing with sawdust from the bracelet resulted in a very strong reaction. Patch tests with the pure constituents yielded +++ reactions to the main sensitizers of cocobolo, including obtusaquinone, but also to sensitizers present in other rosewoods. This last fact can be explained by cross-reactivity between different dalbergiones. Contact dermatitis from tropical woods is more frequent than thought, owing to their high sensitizing properties. An exhaustive search can identify the allergen responsible in many cases.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207