MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2332485583 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000054

Is Cigarette Smoking Dangerous for Chronic Hand Eczema in Housewives?

2014· article· en· W2332485583 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cataldo Patruno, Fabio Ayala, Orlando Zagaria, Nicola Balato

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHand eczemaChronic diseaseCigarette smokingIncidence (geometry)DermatologyAllergyInternal medicineImmunologyContact dermatitis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic hand eczema is defined as a persistent (>6 months' duration) noninfectious skin inflammation of the hands. It is twice as common in women as men. Although genetic factors have been considered, greater exposure of women to wet work, such as housework, is assumed to be the most likely explanation. It has been debated whether lifestyle factors may be associated with chronic hand eczema. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of cigarette smoking on housewives for the development of chronic hand eczema. METHODS: We analyzed 516 housewives 18 years or older. Two hundred fourteen were affected by chronic hand eczema, and 302 were control subjects. Both patients and control subjects were divided into 2 subgroups, smokers and nonsmokers. An anonymous questionnaire was submitted to each woman. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences emerged between "smokers" and "nonsmokers" concerning the incidence of chronic hand eczema. In addition, the smokers were mainly affected by a milder ("almost clear") form of the disease. On the other hand, "severe" forms of chronic hand eczema might be more frequent in nonsmokers when compared with smokers. This study suggests that smoking is not associated with onset of chronic hand eczema, but with less severe chronic hand eczema.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207