Acute and chronic effects of sulfur mustard on the skin: a comprehensive review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sulfur mustard (2,2-dichlorodiethyl sulfide, SM) is one of the vesicant classes of chemical warfare agents that causes blistering in the skin and mucous membranes, where it can have lingering long-term effects for up to ten years (1). SM was employed extensively by the Iraqi army against not only Iranian soldiers but also civilians between 1983 and 1988, resulting in over 100,000 chemical casualties. Approximately 45,000 victims are still suffering from long-term effects of exposure (2,3). More than 90% of the patients exposed to SM exhibit various cutaneous lesions in the affected area. The human skin can absorb approximately 20% of the SM through exposure. Up to 70% of the chemical is concentrated in the epidermis and the remainder in the basement membrane and in the dermis (4).Sulfur mustard exists in different physical states. The liquid form of SM evaporates slowly in cold weather and can penetrate through the clothing, thereby increasing exposure. However, the gas form readily diffuses in the air and it can be inhaled, leading to systemic absorption. In addition, warm temperatures are ideal conditions that liquid SM present in the clothing of the exposed individual could be converted to gas form. SM-induced clinical cutaneous symptoms include itching and burning. Other clinical findings include erythema or painless sunburn, bulla, hypo- and hyper pigmentation in both exposed and unexposed areas (5,6) The mechanism and biochemical cascade of SM-induced cutaneous manifestations are not completely understood but several published pathways support many of the know facts. Our current understanding fails to explain the time interval between the acute chemical exposure and the late-onset and delayed tissue damage (7,8). The aim of this article is to review the acute and long-term cutaneous findings resulting from SM exposure. Also, cellular and molecular mechanism involved in SM-induced skin pathology have been discussed.
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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".