Occupational Dermatitis in Health Care Workers Evaluated for Suspected Allergic Contact Dermatitis
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: Contact dermatitides occur commonly among health care workers (HCWs). OBJECTIVE: To contrast the atopic status and incidence, location, and final diagnosis of skin diseases afflicting HCWs versus non-HCWs (NHCWs) evaluated for suspicion of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD); and among the population diagnosed with ACD, to compare the incidence and occupational relatedness of allergens found in HCWs with the rates observed in NHCWs. METHODS: Between July 1, 1994, and May 30, 2014, 2611 patients underwent patch testing by the senior author. Of these, 165 were classified as HCWs based on their primary occupation. Statistical analysis was done using a χ test. RESULTS: Health care workers were more likely than NHCWs to be women and to have hand dermatitis. Women, but not men, HCWs suffered more irritant contact dermatitis. Health care workers had significantly more work-related ACD, especially to formaldehyde, quaternium-15, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol, cocamide diethanolamine (DEA), thiuram mix, carba mix, thimerosal, benzalkonium chloride, glutaraldehyde, and bacitracin. LIMITATIONS: Only patients suspected of having ACD were tested. Our population was geographically limited to metropolitan Kansas City, MO and metropolitan New York, NY. CONCLUSIONS: Health care workers suffer more from occupational ACD, especially of the hands, than do NHCWs, including to allergens not present on available standard allergen series.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it