Nickel Allergy in Adults in the US: 1962 to 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a significant number of nickel dermatitis cases are seen clinically, most cases are neither patch-tested nor captured in the literature, allowing for a prospering hidden nickel epidemic. We present a qualitative review utilizing the public medical library of peer-reviewed US adult nickel dermatitis cases with the goal of identifying regional variations and trends. Between 1962 and 2015, 18,251 adult patients were reported to be sensitized to nickel. The number of articles has exponentially increased over the past 5.5 decades as 4.3% of total cases were reported between the 1960s and 1990s, 31.3% between 2000 and 2009, and 64.3% were reported between 2010 and 2015. Geographically, 27 US states have had at least 1 reported case of adult nickel dermatitis. Rising rates of US nickel dermatitis noted in our findings further highlight the need for medical professionals, legislators, and manufacturers to advocate for regulation of nickel-containing items.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".