MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086799836 · doi:10.1159/000246247

Halogen Lamp Phototoxicity

2009· article· en· W2086799836 on OpenAlexaff
Ernest Bloom, James E. Cleaver, Robert M. Sayre, Howard I. Maïbach, J.R. Polansky

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhototoxicityHalogen lampPyrimidine dimerSunlightPhotosensitivityIrradiationRadiationUltravioletErythemaHuman skinOpticsOptoelectronicsMaterials scienceChemistryDNA damageMedicineDermatologyBiologyDNAPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The radiation from quartz halogen light bulbs has been reported to cause erythema in humans and skin tumors in experimental animals. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the relative risk of injury to humans due to the radiation from these lamps. METHODS: We studied a 12-volt 50-watt quartz halogen lamp. We measured its ultraviolet output spectrum and the biological toxicity of its radiation by means of its pyrimidine dimer-inducing capability. RESULTS: At a 1-cm distance, the 254-nm light output of the lamp is 3 x 10(-7) W/cm2/nm. Solar radiation at this wavelength is undetectable on the earth's surface, i.e., less than 10(-12) W/cm2/nm. At 290 nm, the lamp output is approximately 3 x 10(-6) W/cm2/nm, 5,000 times greater than the summertime sun at 1 p.m. at sea level in Kuwait. The UVB and UVA output of the lamp is roughly similar to the solar output under these conditions. We also measured the pyrimidine dimer-forming potential of the lamps relative to the sun for the purpose of estimating the DNA toxicity of the lamps. At a 7-cm distance the lamp induces approximately 3.9 pyrimidine dimers/100,000 bp/min. This is approximately 4 times more rapid than that of the noontime summer sun in Michigan. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that direct radiation from these lamps can cause damage to human skin, due to their UVC and UVB output. We estimate that the relative risk to keratinocyte DNA in human skin, in vivo, from exposure to the 50-watt halogen lamp at a distance of 7 cm is between 27 and 400% of the noontime summer sun in Michigan.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatologySame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207