The Utility of an Occupational Contact Dermatitis Patch Test Database in the Analysis of Workplace Prevention Activities in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational skin diseases are common suggesting that there are still gaps in workplace prevention. Patch test surveillance systems provide an opportunity to collect work related information in addition to clinical information and patch test results. OBJECTIVES: To examine 5 years of data related to workplace prevention by industry sector in a patch test surveillance database for workers with a diagnosis of occupational contact dermatitis. METHODS: The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board of St Michael's Hospital. Information including demographics, clinical history, healthcare utilization, and workplace characteristics and prevention practices in addition to patch test results was collected from consenting patients. RESULTS: Workers in the healthcare and manufacturing sectors were more likely to report workplace training including skin protection training, whereas those in services and construction were less likely to report training. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting basic workplace information with patch test surveillance databases can inform the occupational health and safety system about prevention practices in the workplace and identify areas for focussed intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".