Occupational Contact Dermatitis in North American Production Workers Referred for Patch Testing: Retrospective Analysis of Cross-Sectional Data From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 1998 to 2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the epidemiology of contact dermatitis in production workers (PWs). OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to estimate the prevalence of contact dermatitis and characterize clinically relevant and occupationally related allergens among North American PWs undergoing patch testing. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data from 1998 to 2014. RESULTS: Of 39,332 patch-tested patients, 2732 (7.0%) were PWs. Among PWs, most were men (62.4%) and white (83.9%). A history of childhood eczema was uncommon (11.3%). Prevalent occupations included machine operators (27.3%); fabricators, assemblers, and hand-working occupations (16.8%); and precision metalworking occupations (16.1%). The most frequent sites of dermatitis were the hands (53.8%) and arms (29.4%), which were significantly more commonly affected compared with non-PWs (P < 0.0001). Occupationally related skin disease, allergic contact dermatitis, and irritant contact dermatitis were also significantly more common in PWs (49.9% vs 10.6%, 58.9% vs 53.7%, and 32.7% vs 25.7%, respectively; all Ps < 0.0001). Epoxy (15.3%), thiuram mix (8.3%), carba mix (8.1%), formaldehyde (6.3%), and cobalt (5.9%) were the most frequent occupationally related allergens. The top allergen sources included adhesives/glues (16.0%), metalworking fluids/cutting oils (6.8%), and coatings (6.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Production workers had a high rate of occupationally related skin disease, as well as irritant and allergic contact dermatitis. Involvement of exposed body areas was common. Frequently identified allergens included adhesives/glues, rubber accelerators, metals, and preservatives.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".