Rubber Accelerators in Medical Examination and Surgical Gloves
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rubber accelerators play a significant role in glove-related occupational contact dermatitis, especially among health care workers. Currently, there is limited information readily available outlining the accelerators used in specific medical examination and surgical gloves. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to ascertain the accelerators used in medical examination and surgical gloves for major glove manufacturers within the United States. METHODS: An initial Internet-based search was performed to establish relevant manufacturers and product lines, with subsequent inquiry with each corresponding company regarding accelerators used in each medical and surgical glove line. RESULTS: Eleven glove manufacturers were identified and contacted. Responses were obtained from all manufacturers, but because of legal limitations, changes in product lines, or inability to supply necessary data, only 8 companies were able to be included in the final analysis, totaling data for 190 gloves. Carbamates were the most common accelerator, used in 90.5% (172/190) of gloves, whereas thiurams were used in only 11 gloves (5.8%). Eight companies surveyed are now advertising and offering touted accelerator-free gloves. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerators are used in most examination and surgical gloves; however, manufacturers are now expanding their product offerings to include accelerator-free options.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it