Cement-Induced Chromate Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hexavalent chromium in cement is a common cause of occupational allergic contact dermatitis (OACD). METHODS: Analysis of patch test data during 1999 to 2013 was done. Patients with cement-induced chromate OACD filled the Dermatology Life Quality Index, graded 1 to 5. RESULTS: Of 4846 consecutive patients who were patch tested, 146 (3%) were chromate-sensitive. Of 46 (31.5%) who presented with chromate OACD, 27 (59%) had cement-induced chromate OACD. The proportion of chromate-sensitive patients with clinically relevant cement exposure increased from 7.7% in 2002 to 2004 to 28.7% in 2011 to 2013 (P = 0.04). The median age of presentation was younger than for other chromate-sensitive patients (32 vs 42 years). Hand eczema (88.9%) was the most frequent clinical presentation. Of the 27 with cement-induced chromate OACD, 21 (77.8%) had ongoing dermatitis at the time of the review. Although 14/27 (51.9%) changed their occupation to avoid exposure to cement, symptoms persisted in 9/14 (64.3%). Prolonged exposure to cement before development of symptoms was associated with chronicity. All the symptomatic patients experienced at least a moderate effect on their quality of life (grade 3 or higher on the Dermatology Life Quality Index). CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the adoption of the European legislation in Israel, to reduce the prevalence of chromate OACD from cement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".