MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073252284 · doi:10.1097/der.0b013e31823d1b81

Acrylates in Contact Dermatitis

2012· review· en· W2073252284 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Denis Sasseville

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria HospitalMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcrylateAllergic contact dermatitisContact dermatitisMedicineMeth-Patch testingSensitizationDermatologyPatch testAdhesiveMonomerPolymerizationPolymer chemistryAllergyMaterials scienceComposite materialPolymerImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acrylates are plastic materials that are formed by the polymerization of monomers derived from acrylic or methacrylic acid. They have found numerous applications in paints, varnishes and adhesives, in the printing industry, in the medical and dental professions, and in artificial nails. Beginning in the 1950s, many reports of occupational and nonoccupational allergic contact dermatitis to (meth)acrylate monomers have been published. These molecules are strong irritants, and patch testing can induce active sensitization. When patch tested, acrylate-allergic patients often display multiple positive tests. These reactions may represent cross-reactions, or concomitant reactions due to the presence, in the products responsible for sensitization, of impurities not disclosed in material safety data sheets. (Meth)acrylates are volatile and unstable chemicals, as demonstrated by their rapid disappearance from commercially available patch test allergens when exposed to air for more than a few hours.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations98
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207