Acquiring Allergen Information from Condom Manufacturers: A Questionnaire Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis from condoms is a problem that carries significant morbidity and that has been increasingly reported due to the use of condoms to prevent sexually transmitted diseases as well as for birth control. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study is to evaluate the process by which condom manufacturing companies divulge product allergen information to health care professionals. METHODS: An interviewer-administered telephone questionnaire eliciting the staff member's knowledge of condom allergens was utilized. Eligible respondents were condom manufacturers' service staff over 18 years of age. RESULTS: Complete surveys were obtained regarding 36 (85.7%) of the 42 subtypes of condoms. Telephoning was the primary (75%) method of obtaining allergen information. The majority (63.9%) of the information was obtained within minutes to hours of the initial contact. Nearly two-thirds of the interviews evaluated the condom manufacturers' service staff as good and effective in their knowledge base and in providing product information. CONCLUSION: The study determined that the extent of knowledge, helpfulness, and effectiveness of the customer service personnel in relaying product allergen information to clinicians were generally good. The study additionally generated a reference table outlining the common allergens in major manufactured condoms.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".