Occupation-Related Symptoms in Hairdressers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During work, hairdressers are exposed to several hazardous agents that can cause skin and respiratory symptoms. Because few data are available for long-term follow-up, and none are from Italy, the aim of our study was to investigate occupational symptoms in hairdressers after a 10-year follow-up. METHODS: Work-related skin and respiratory symptoms were investigated in 2006 and 2016 by means of a standardized questionnaire and medical examination. RESULTS: Eighty-two workers completed the 10-year follow-up with a response rate of 86.3%. At follow-up, skin- and respiratory work-related symptoms had increased significantly, involving 40.7% of workers. Skin symptoms increased to 12.5%, throat irritation to 15.6%, and cough to 12.5%. The occurrence of the symptom of skin irritation was significantly related to dryness of the skin at the baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Our long-term follow-up on hairdressers demonstrated an increase in work-related irritant skin and upper respiratory symptoms that involved more than one-third of the population studied. More efforts are needed in prevention activities to promote better ventilation of workplaces, use of less irritating and less sensitizing hair products, and use of moisturizers to prevent dry skin.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".