Evaluation of Percutaneous Penetration of Natural Rubber Latex Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Latex allergy is recognized worldwide as a serious health risk. To date, exposure assessment and intervention strategies have focused primarily on respiratory protection; this work evaluates the potential role of dermal protein penetration in the development of latex allergy. In vitro penetration models using flow-through diffusion cells and both human surgical specimens and hairless guinea pig skin (CrL: IAF/HA) demonstrated iodinated latex proteins (ammoniated and non-ammoniated) penetrating into and through both intact and abraded skin. Although less than 1% penetration was observed with intact skin, up to 23% of latex proteins applied to abraded skin were recovered from receptor fluid within 24 h of exposure. Phosphoimaging of the concentrated effluent revealed proteins ranging in size from 3 to 26 kDa. Using a (3)H(2)O penetration assay to evaluate barrier integrity, the amount of latex protein penetration was found to positively correlate with the degree of dermabrasion. Immunohistochemistry of the skin localized latex proteins in the Langerhans cell-rich epidermis and in the dermis. Both in vitro penetration studies and immunohistochemistry supported the use of hairless guinea pig skin as a surrogate for human skin in evaluating latex protein penetration. In studies performed in vivo, 35% of hairless guinea pigs topically exposed to latex proteins (100 microg) 5 days per week for 3 months demonstrated elevations in latex-specific IgG1. The implication for these data is that the skin is not only a plausible route for latex sensitization but can be a major exposure route when the integument has been compromised.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".