Occupational Contact Dermatitis in Mechanics and Repairers Referred for Patch Testing: Retrospective Analysis From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 1998–2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact dermatoses are common in mechanic and repair occupations. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (1) estimate the prevalence of occupationally related contact dermatitis among mechanics/repairers patch tested from 1998 to 2014 by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, (2) characterize responsible allergens and irritants, and their sources, and (3) compare results among 3 occupational subgroups (mechanics, electrical/electronic, and other). METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of patients patch tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group between 1998 and 2014. RESULTS: Of 38,784 patients patch tested, 691 (1.8%) were mechanics/repairers. Male sex (93.5%) and hand involvement (59.5%) were common overall. Occupationally related skin disease was more prevalent among vehicle and mobile equipment mechanics/repairers (52.7%) and other mechanics/repairers (41.4%) than electrical/electronic equipment mechanics/repairers (21.3%). Overall, carba mix, thiuram mix, and methylchloroisothiazolone/methylisothiazolone were the most common occupation-related clinically relevant allergens. Gloves, automotive vehicles, solvents, oils, lubricants, and fuels were the most common sources of responsible allergens. CONCLUSIONS: Common occupationally related allergens included rubber accelerators and the preservative methylchloroisothiazolone/methylisothiazolone.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".