Persistent Photosensitivity After Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Epoxy Resin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Persistent photosensitivity after allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to epoxy resin has rarely been described. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to create awareness that ACD to epoxy may be a trigger for persistent photosensitivity. METHODS: We present a series of 5 patients who developed ACD to epoxy resin and later a photodistributed eczematous eruption when exposed to sunlight, with a documented decrease in minimal erythema dose to UVA and UVB. RESULTS: The age of patients ranged from 34 to 71 years, and there were 3 men and 2 women. Each patient had occupational exposure to epoxy. Symptoms of epoxy ACD preceded photosensitivity by 5 months to 12 years in 3 cases and occurred simultaneously in 2 cases. Patch testing to epoxy resin was positive in all patients. Phototesting revealed a decreased minimal erythema dose to UVA and UVB in each of the 3 patients who were phototested. Photopatch testing was positive for epoxy resin in 1 of the 2 patients tested. All patients remained photosensitive for at least 2 years after diagnosis, with only 1 case of photosensitivity resolving with extended avoidance of epoxy. CONCLUSIONS: There is an association between ACD to epoxy resin and development of persistent photosensitivity. Possible mechanisms to explain the relationship between the 2 phenomena are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".