Can the Reactivity to Chromate Be Changed in Patch Testing Using a Barrier Cream?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The persistent, difficult-to-treat, allergic contact dermatitis from hexavalent chromium in European construction workers has diminished significantly since the legislative measurements that came into force in January 2005. However, sensitization to hexavalent chromium continues to be a problem. Barrier creams have been tried for various allergens with divergent results. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the protective capacity of barrier cream candidates against hexavalent chromium in a patch test situation. METHODS: An experimental study was performed to investigate the reductive properties of glutathione and iron sulfate on the patch test reactivity in chromium-allergic individuals when exposed to hexavalent chromium. In this study, we also investigated the protective properties of a commercially available barrier cream. CONCLUSIONS: A higher number of volunteers (16/18) showed reactions on the skin treated with the commercially available barrier cream, compared with the untreated skin (13/18) on test reading day 3/4 or day 7. The skin treated with petrolatum or Essex cream showed fewer and less prominent allergic reactions than the skin treated with the commercially available barrier cream.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".