Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescents between the ages of 10 and 19 are exposed to a series of substances capable of causing contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVES: (1) To study the frequency and characteristics of allergic contact dermatitis in adolescents, (2) to characterize the group being studied, and (3) to verify the main sensitizing substances among this age group. METHODS: From 1996 to 2001, 1,027 patients with a suspicion of contact dermatitis were analyzed, and patients between 10 and 19 years of age were selected. These patients were submitted to contact tests. RESULTS: Among the 102 adolescents, 93 (91%) were female and 9 (9%) were male. The face was the area most affected by dermatosis. The contact tests were positive in 64 patients (56%), whereas in 45 (44%) they were negative. The main location of the contact dermatitis was the face (36%). The substances with higher frequencies of sensitization were nickel sulfate in 33 (31%) patients and tosylamide-formaldehyde resin in 13 (12%) patients. CONCLUSION: Contact dermatitis in adolescents was more frequent in white girls and on the face. The substances with greater frequency of sensitization were nickel sulfate and tosylamide-formaldehyde resin. These two substances are related to adolescent habits and behavior.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".