Occupational Contact Dermatitis in Hairdressers/Cosmetologists: Retrospective Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 1994 to 2010
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: European studies document that occupational contact dermatitis (CD) is common in hairdressers, but studies from North America are lacking. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to estimate the prevalence of occupational CD among North American hairdressers/cosmetologists (HD/CS) and to characterize responsible allergens and irritants as well as their sources. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of patients patch tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group between 1994 and 2010 was conducted. RESULTS: Of 35,842 patients, 432 (1.2%) were HD/CS. Significantly, most of the HD/CS were female (89.8%) and younger than 40 years (55.6%) as compared with non-hairdressers (P < 0.0001). The rates for allergic and irritant CD in HD/CS were 72.7% and 37.0%, respectively. The most common body site of involvement was the hand, and this was significantly more common than in non-HD/CS (P < 0.0001). The most frequent currently relevant and occupationally related allergens were glyceryl thioglycolate, p-phenylenediamine, nickel sulfate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, and quaternium-15. Hair dyes, permanent wave solutions, and other hair products were common sources of allergens. The North American Contact Dermatitis Group allergen series missed at least 1 occupationally-related allergen in 26.2% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Contact dermatitis in North American HD/CS is common, and occupationally related allergens are those found in HD/CS products. Supplemental hairdressing/cosmetology antigen series are important in detecting all occupationally related allergens in this population.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it