Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review examined recent advances in occupational contact dermatitis (OCD). RECENT FINDINGS: Both genetic and environmental factors contribute to OCD. There is continuing growth in our understanding of the genetic factors, particularly related to filaggrin mutations. In spite of increased understanding of irritant exposures, the prevalence of hand eczema in workers with wet work exposures remains high at approximately 20%. Patch test database surveillance systems have documented reductions in the occurrence of sensitivity to some allergens such as chromium wherein regulatory efforts have reduced workplace exposures. These surveillance data have also documented increases in sensitivity to several allergens in particular trades, serving as an effective system to identify new exposure situations or new allergens. The impact of OCD on quality of life and mental health conditions, employment and financial aspects is increasingly documented. Progress in understanding the underreporting of OCD and the underlying reasons continues. Several groups have developed robust multidisciplinary secondary and tertiary prevention programmes and the evaluations demonstrate promise. Although several recent systematic reviews have documented the evidence for various prevention strategies, there is increasing understanding of the gaps in prevention practices in actual workplaces. SUMMARY: Understanding of the underlying genetic and environmental agents contributing to OCD is increasing. In spite of progress with reducing exposure to some allergens, the prevalence of OCD continues to be high, particularly related to wet work. New prevention programmes are being developed and evaluated and hold promise for improved outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".