MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124799583 · doi:10.1080/15569520500536600

Textiles and Human Skin, Microclimate, Cutaneous Reactions: An Overview

2006· review· en· W2124799583 on OpenAlexaff
Wen Zhong, Malcolm Xing, Ning Pan, Howard I. Maibach

Bibliographic record

VenueCutaneous and Ocular Toxicology · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDermatologyClothingIrritationDrynessSkin irritationTextileHuman skinMicroclimateMedicineBlistersSurgeryMaterials scienceBiologyComposite materialEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article overviews research in the interdisciplinary area of textile/skin interaction and related cutaneous intolerance. Microclimate in the skin/clothing system and especially the skin responses relates to the moisture and heat transfer within this system and plays a critical role in skin irritation from textiles. A discussion is then given on skin irritation reactions to textiles, including intolerance caused by chemicals (dyes and finishes) and physical contact/friction. Finally, two skin injuries, blisters and pressure ulcers, which are caused by physical contact, pressure, and friction, are documented. Despite the prevalent problems caused by ill textile/skin interactions, minimal efforts have been devoted to this field. In addition, the in vivo experimental studies infrequently lead to a solid conclusion. The cause may lie in the dramatic variation of skin conditions among individuals as well as among different anatomic sites of the same person. Another reason might be the lack of communications between researchers in the areas of textiles and dermatology.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations120
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCutaneous and Ocular ToxicologySame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207