The differences in human cumulative irritation responses to positive and negative irritant controls from three geographical locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective analysis was conducted to evaluate whether studies from three geographically diverse locations have similar response profiles to the positive and negative controls in a standard 14-day cumulative irritation study (1). The positive irritant control (0.1% sodium lauryl sulfate, SLS) and the negative control (0.9% sodium chloride, saline) data from seventeen 14-day cumulative irritation studies were reviewed. The studies were compiled from three locations representing dry/hot, humid/hot, and dry/cold environments (Scottsdale, Arizona; St. Petersburg, Florida; and Winnipeg, Manitoba, respectively). Irritation scores were generated by trained skin graders from a total of 442 subjects studied between 1999 and 2005. Cumulative irritation scores were reviewed and compared between study locations. The irritation scores for the positive and negative controls were not significantly different between locations. Temperature and relative humidity (RH) variation did not correlate significantly with overall irritation. However, the dryer climate (i.e., negative or low dew point) had a tendency to induce a higher overall irritation level for both positive and negative controls.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".