Patch-Test Results of Chemotechnique Oil and Cooling Fluid Series in Patients with Suspected Occupational Contact Dermatitis in Israel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There appear to be no published studies on the rates of positive allergic reactions to oil and cooling fluids. OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of the oil and cooling fluid series from Chemotechnique Diagnostics in patients in Israel who are suspected to have occupational allergic contact dermatitis. METHODS: The authors reviewed the findings in 175 patients with suspected occupational contact dermatitis who worked with oil and cooling fluids and were patch-tested at two dermatologic clinics in Israel from 1999 to 2003. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (all male; mean age, 40.8 years) had 67 positive reactions to 27 of the 35 allergens (86.7% relevant). An occupational cause was established in 39 patients (88.6%). Thirty-seven of the patients with a positive reaction were also tested with the European Standard series. Of these, 22 (59%) had positive reactions to several allergens in the standard series as well. CONCLUSION: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study of the oil and cooling fluid patch-test series in this setting. The findings indicate that this series serves as an appropriate test for evaluating occupational contact dermatitis and that its composition should not be changed, pending further studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".