Hand Dermatitis in Auto Mechanics and Machinists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Auto mechanics and machinists presenting with suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) have traditionally been patch-tested with a standard screening tray and a specialty tray such as the Oil and Cooling Fluid Series. While this has proven useful for patch-testing the machinist, there is a need for the development of a more specific allergen testing tray for the auto mechanic. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare clinical features and patch-test results of auto mechanics and machinists with hand dermatitis to evaluate differences in allergen profiles. METHODS: We performed a chart review of 33 auto mechanics and 24 machinists referred to our Occupational Contact Dermatitis Clinic from 2002 to 2005 for evaluation of hand dermatitis. RESULTS: With a panel of 84 allergens, 52 positive reactions were detected in 17 cases of ACD in mechanics. The profiles were different from the cases of ACD diagnosed in 10 of 24 machinists. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanics and machinists differ in the spectrum of occupational exposures. Patch testing with greater numbers of allergens likely identifies a larger proportion of mechanics with occupationally relevant ACD. Further study is needed to determine the most appropriate allergens to include in a clinically useful "mechanic's tray."
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".