Contact Dermatitis in Hairdressers, 10 Years Later: Patch-Test Results in 300 Hairdressers (1994 to 2003) and Comparison with Previous Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the last 20 years, the hairdressing profession has undergone important modifications, mainly because of a change in the substances and techniques used and improved occupational education. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the modifications in the hairdressing profession and its actual risk of occupational allergic contact dermatitis (OACD). METHODS: We studied all 300 hairdressers seen in our department from 1994 to 2003 and compared the results with those of a previous study of 379 hairdressers who attended our department from 1980 to 1993. All were patch-tested with the European Standard series and specific hairdressing products. As previously, most of the workers were women (93%), with a mean age (23.7 years) slightly higher than that of the workers in our previous study. RESULTS: We found a significant increase in the frequency of positive patch-test responses (78.3% vs 58.8%) and OACD (58% vs 48.8%) with respect to our previous study. We also observed a significant increase in sensitization to most allergens, including p-phenylenediamine base (54% vs 45.9%), 4-aminobenzene (40.7% vs 31.9%), ammonium thioglycolate (2.7% to 12.3%), ammonium persulfate (7.9% to 14.3%), p-toluenediamine sulfate (6.8% to 15.3%), p-aminodiphenylamine (2.9% to 7.7%), o-nitro-4-phenylenediamine (2.1% to 7.3%), and aminophenols (0% to 9%), whereas a decrease was found in sensitization to Disperse Orange (17% vs 32.7%) and thioglycolic acid (15.3% to 3%). CONCLUSION: The high frequency and increase of sensitizations among hairdressers require urgent measures to improve protective measures and their application.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".