Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis from Epoxy Resin in a Golf Club Repairman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A golfer presented with facial and hand eczema. He had exacerbations of his hand eczema prior to golf tournaments. Being an authorized golf club repairman, he had been working with a two-part glue containing an epoxy resin (ER) based on diglycidyl ether of bisphenol A (DGEBA) and the hardener diethylenetriamine (DETA) for approximately 4 years before he developed any skin problems. He was patch-tested with the standard, which contains an ER based on DGEBA (DGEBA-R), epoxy (containing DETA), and rubber glove series and had positive reactions to DGEBA-R only. Other work materials (a latex glove, a golf glove made of leather, and part of the handle of his own golf club "as is" and in a methyl tert-butyl ether extract) were tested, with negative results. Allergic contact dermatitis from ER affects the skin by direct contact; the dermatitis is usually localized to the hands and forearms. If the face and eyelids are involved, the dermatitis may be due to exposure to airborne hardeners or reactive diluents, exposure to airborne dust from residual monomers, or ectopic allergic reactions. Our repairman had sandpapered an old glued surface, which may have led to possible airborne dust formation, thus explaining the facial eczema. Therefore, a worker with contact allergy to ER may continue working provided the skin is protected from contamination.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".