Occupational contact allergens: Are they also associated with occupational asthma?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Workplace exposures that can potentially cause both allergic occupational contact dermatitis (AOCD) and occupational asthma (OA) are not clearly identified. METHODS: Occupational contact allergens (OCAs) were identified using North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data. Reference documents and systematic reviews were used to determine whether each OCA had been reported to potentially cause OA. The presence or absence of a sensitizer notation in occupational hygiene reference documents was also examined. RESULTS: The 10 most common OCAs were: epoxy resin*, thiuram, carba mix, nickel sulfate*, cobalt chloride*, potassium dichromate*, glyceryl thioglycolate, p-phenylenediamine*, formaldehyde* and glutaraldehyde*. Seven (indicated by *) were determined to be possible causes of OA. Information on sensitizing potential from OH reference materials contained conflicting information. CONCLUSIONS: Several common OCAs can also potentially cause OA. Inhalation and dermal exposures to these agents should be controlled and both OA and AOCD should be considered as possible health outcomes. Increased consistency in sensitizer notations is needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".