MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Occupational Contact Allergy and Dermatitis from Methylisothiazolinone after Contact with Wallcovering Glue and after a Chemical Burn from a Biocide

2004· article· en· W2045338701 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marléne Isaksson, Birgitta Gruvberger, M. Bruze

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocideSensitizationMedicineDermatologyAllergic contact dermatitisContact dermatitisContact allergyAllergyGLUEChemical burnSurgeryImmunologyPathologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skin exposure to biocides containing high concentrations of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) may cause severe chemical burns and may also induce sensitization. We report two cases in which skin exposure to a newly launched biocide containing 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (MI) and 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one led to sensitization to Ml, which in the second case was preceded by a chemical burn. A study was performed to investigate the pattern of reactivity to MCI and Ml in two patients who presumably had a primary sensitization to Ml and in one patient who had been sensitized to MCI/MI by being patch-tested. The patients were patch-tested with serial dilutions of MCI/MI, MCI, MI, and 2-n-octyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one. The first two patients reacted to both MCI/MI and the separate active ingredients, with a higher level of reactivity to Ml than to MCI. The third patient reacted to MCI/MI and MCI only. A biocide containing Ml caused sensitization and occupational contact dermatitis in the first two patients, through contact with wallpaper glue in one case and after a chemical burn in the other case.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations79
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207