Occupational Contact Dermatitis: Workers’ Compensation Patch Test Results of Portland, Oregon, 2005–2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Workers are exposed to potential irritants and allergens with constant introduction of new industrial chemicals in the workplace. OBJECTIVE: Characterize the final diagnoses, demographics, occupations, exposures, clinical presentations, patch test results, dermatologic histories, and risk factors of workers evaluated for suspected work-related allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 310 workers' compensation independent medical examinations evaluated for suspected work-related ACD was performed. Workers were seen in a community dermatology clinic in Portland, Oregon, from 2005 to 2014. Evaluation included history, physical examination, patch testing, and further diagnostic workup when indicated. RESULTS: Hand dermatitis was the most common presentation (n = 148, 47.7%). Prevalent occupations included health care workers (n = 51, 16.5%), custodial staff (n = 41, 13.2%), and machinists (n = 36, 11.6%). Allergic contact dermatitis (47.5%) was more common than irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) (38.9%) in those diagnosed as having occupational skin disease (n = 185). The highest-frequency work-related allergens were thiuram mix (21 of 88, 23.9%), carba mix (20 of 88, 22.7%), potassium dichromate (9 of 88, 10.2%), and epoxy resin (9 of 88, 10.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Allergic contact dermatitis and ICD are common occupational skin disorders. In this population of workers' compensation referrals, ACD was more common, with 73.3% of those cases work related, compared with 86.7% of ICD. Blue collar work and wet work were risk factors for the development of ACD and ICD.
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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".