Is Cigarette Smoking Dangerous for Chronic Hand Eczema in Housewives?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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; 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".