Pizza Makers’ Contact Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact eczema to foods, spices, and food additives can occur in occupational and nonoccupational settings in those who grow, handle, prepare, or cook food. Pizza is one of the most eaten foods in every continent, and pizza making is a common work in many countries. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the occurrence and the causes of contact dermatitis in pizza makers in Naples. METHODS: We performed an observational study in 45 pizza makers: all the enrolled subjects had to answer a questionnaire designed to detect personal history of respiratory or cutaneous allergy, atopy; work characteristics and timing were also investigated. Every subject attended the dermatology clinic for a complete skin examination, and when needed, patients were patch tested using the Italian baseline series of haptens integrated with an arbitrary pizza makers series. RESULTS: Our results reported that 13.3% of the enrolled pizza makers (6/45) presented hand eczema, and that 8.9% (4/45) were affected by occupational allergic contact dermatitis. Diallyl disulfide and ammonium persulfate were the responsible substances. CONCLUSIONS: Performing patch tests in pizza makers and food handlers affected by hand contact dermatitis is useful. We propose a specific series of haptens for this wide working category.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".