Workplace screening for hand dermatitis: a pilot study: Table 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk for developing occupational skin disease (OSD) such as dermatitis primarily due to exposure to wet work. Identification of risk factors and workplace screening can help early detection of OSD to avoid the condition becoming chronic. AIMS: To determine risk factors and clinical findings for hand dermatitis using a workplace screening tool. METHODS: Employees at a large teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada, were invited to complete a two-part hand dermatitis screening tool. Part 1 inquired about hand hygiene practices and Part 2 comprised a visual assessment of participants' hands by a health professional and classification as (i) normal, (ii) mild dermatitis or (iii) moderate/severe dermatitis. Risk factors were determined using chi-square and Cochran-Armitage analysis on a dichotomous variable, where Yes represented either a mild or moderate/severe disease classification. RESULTS: There were 183 participants out of 643 eligible employees; response rate 28%. Mild or moderate/severe dermatitis was present in 72% of participants. These employees were more likely to work directly with patients, have worked longer in a health care setting, wash hands and change gloves more frequently, wear gloves for more hours per day, have a history of eczema or dermatitis and report a current rash on the hands or rash in the past 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high percentage of HCWs with dermatitis and risk factors for dermatitis. These findings argue for increased attention to prevention and early identification of hand dermatitis and support further testing of the workplace screening tool.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".