Hand and Upper Extremity Function in Workers With Hand Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional methods of assessing impairment associated with skin conditions focus on clinical severity, medication usage, activities of daily living, and quality of life. Assessment of function and ability to work may provide important additional information when determining readiness to work. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to gain an understanding of the functional impairment of the hand and upper extremity associated with hand dermatitis and the impact of hand dermatitis on quality of life, work instability, and productivity. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with suspected contact dermatitis of the hands participated in physical and functional assessments of the upper extremity and patient-reported questionnaires including Dermatology Life Quality Index, Short Form 36 Health Survey, Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH), Work Instability Scale, and Work Limitations Questionnaire. RESULTS: Numbness and finger joint restrictions were moderate to severe in 29% and 30% of the workers, respectively. Positive Tinel and/or Phalen signs occurred in 25%. Forty-eight percent reported moderate-to-high work instability, and 31% reported a greater than 10% decrease in work productivity. Thirty-five percent missed work in the past year, 19% were doing a different job, and 9% were not working. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with hand dermatitis demonstrate significant functional compromise of the hand and a decrease in ability to work.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".