Contact Sensitization in Chinese Patients with Hand Eczema
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact sensitization is an important cause of hand eczema, a common disease that affects both daily and occupational life. OBJECTIVE: To describe contact allergens in Chinese patients with hand eczema and to analyze the association between allergens and occupational exposure. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-six patients with hand eczema underwent patch testing with a modified North American standard series between September 1989 and December 2009. RESULTS: Positive patch-test reactions were observed in 74% of patients. The most frequent allergens were p-phenylenediamine (22.7%), nickel sulfate (21.9%), fragrance mix (19.9%), ammoniated mercury (19.7%), and carba mix (17.8%). Nickel and fragrance allergy in women, and carba mix and chromate allergy in men, showed gender predilection, and 64.2% of patients developed hand eczema from occupational exposure. Positive reactions to p-phenylenediamine in hairdressers and to chromate in metalworkers and construction workers presented higher frequencies (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: p-Phenylenediamine, nickel, fragrance, mercury, and rubber chemicals are common allergens in Chinese patients with hand eczema. Gender and occupation may cause different exposures; thus, allergens may vary.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".