MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330211415 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000090

Occupational Sensitization to Acrylates With Paresthesias

2015· letter· en· W2330211415 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ana Rita Rodrigues-Barata, Luis Conde‐Salazar Gómez, José Eduardo Campos Arceo, Leo Barco

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Tumors and Angiosarcomas
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatch testingDermatologyAllergic contact dermatitisContact dermatitisItchingSensitizationPatch testEczematous dermatitisPhysical examinationSurgeryDentistryAllergy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor A 23-year-old woman, dental assistant for 5 years, was referred to our center for evaluation of a 3-month history of eczematous lesions on the dorsum and fingertips of both hands (Fig. 1). Also, the patient complained of itching and tingling sensation in the same location. There was a personal history of allergic rhinitis. On physical examination, we observed decreased thermoalgesic sensitivity in fingertips. In her workplace, the patient managed daily adhesives and composite resins and always wore vinyl gloves when dealing with these substances.Figure 1: Symmetric erythematous and edematous patches on hand’s dorsum.Patch testing was performed with the Spanish Contact Dermatitis Society baseline series (True Test and Chemotechnique Diagnostics AB) and dental series (Table 1) (Chemotechnique Diagnostics AB). The patches were removed on day 2. Readings at days 2, 3, and 6 showed positive reaction to thiuram mix and several acrylates. Curiously, the patient presented a wide extension of the positive reactions on the acrylates patches, as well objective thermalgesic sensitivity reduction in the same location (Fig. 2A). Upon performing patch testing, there was only residual dermatitis on both hands. Three weeks later, we retested the acrylates separately to verify which ones actually the patient was sensitized and obtained positivity to ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (Fig. 2B). To date, and 6 months after the initial evaluation, the patient was given a disability by the Labour Department and had no relapse of her dermatitis, despite that the decreased sensitivity in fingertips persists.Table 1: Dental ScreeningFigure 2: A, Positive and wide extension of the acrylates patch tests. B, After performing patch testing with the acrylates separately, positive reactions to ethyleneglycol dimethacrylate and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate were obtained.The decrease in sensitivity due to acrylic monomers has been documented in the occupational setting in orthopedic surgeons1 and in dentists.2 Fisher3 described the first case of prolonged and severe paresthesia in a client after a procedure of sculptured nails, and subsequently, other authors reported more cases, but to our knowledge, our case represents the first report of decreased sensitivity in the positive acrylic patch test. This altered sensitivity is the result of a peripheral neuropathy, the exact pathophysiological mechanism of which is not yet established, and is independent of allergic contact sensitization. When present, it may persist for several weeks after the resolution of the dermatitis. Donaghy et al4 studied histological sections of nerve biopsy of a dental technician with paresthesias and motor impairment of long evolution and found a chronic axonopathy with severe loss of large-diameter fibers and unmyelinated axons. Animal models in mice demonstrated that acrylates have a neurotoxic effect when applied locally, and recent studies support the theory that they interfere with the fast axonal transport.5 In summary, to our knowledge, this is the first report of decreased sensitivity on positive acrylate patches. The decrease in sensitivity after exposure to acrylates is not very common but can be persistent and debilitating, so dermatologists and neurologists should be aware of its existence. Ana Rita Rodrigues-Barata, MD Luis Conde-Salazar Gomez, MD Department of Occupational Dermatology Instituto de Salud Carlos III Madrid, Spain [email protected] José Eduardo Campos Arceo, MD Department of Dermatology Instituto Dermatológico de Jalisco Guadalajara, México Leo Barco, MD Department of Dermatology Clinica Mediterranea Almeria, Spain

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.701

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicVascular Tumors and AngiosarcomasFrench-language works237,207