MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Children’s clothing fasteners as a potential source of exposure to releasable nickel ions

2009· article· en· W2040290079 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine E. Heim, Bruce A. McKean

Bibliographic record

VenueContact Dermatitis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsNickel Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNickelNickel allergyClothingDimethylglyoximeToxicologyChemistryMetallurgyMedicineContact dermatitisMaterials scienceAllergyImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous nickel allergy in the very young is not well documented or characterized. A significant number of individuals are nickel sensitized by their mid-teenage years. Recent studies suggest that children may become sensitized to nickel at an early age. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate nickel release from children's clothing fasteners as one potential route of exposure of pre-school age children to nickel ions. PATIENTS/METHODS: Fasteners from new and used children's clothing purchased in the USA were tested using the dimethylglyoxime (DMG) and EN1811 tests for nickel ion release. RESULTS: Of 173 fasteners tested, 10 (6%) tested positive using the DMG test for nickel release. EN 1811 standardized nickel release testing of these 10 items demonstrated that 70% (4% of all fasteners tested) released nickel in excess of the European Nickel Directive release limit (0.5 microg/cm(2)/week). Ten randomly selected DMG-negative fasteners were also EN 1811 tested, of which 30% of fasteners exceeded the European Nickel Directive release limit. Therefore, not less than 6% of the fasteners tested released excessive nickel. CONCLUSION: This study concluded that clothing fasteners purchased in the USA could be a source of early childhood exposure to releasable nickel.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.227 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContact DermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207