MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418237334 · doi:10.2310/6620.2011.10123

Contact Sensitization in Chinese Patients with Hand Eczema

2011· article· en· W2418237334 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chunya Ni, Xia Dou, Jianyou Chen, Xuejun Zhu, Lingling Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDermatologyPatch testHand eczemaAllergyContact allergySensitizationContact dermatitisp-PhenylenediamineAllergic contact dermatitisImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207