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

Acrylates in Contact Dermatitis

2012· review· en· W2073252284 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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