MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134037926 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000718

Skin Characteristics of Hairdresser Apprentices at the Beginning of Vocational Training

2021· article· en· W3134037926 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApprenticeshipVocational educationVocational schoolTraining (meteorology)Significant difference

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hairdresser apprentices (HAs) are at high risk of developing occupational contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVES: To assess skin characteristics of HAs, using genotyping, clinically observed and self-reported skin symptoms, and skin bioengineering methods at the beginning of apprenticeship. METHODS: During the screening phase of a prospective cohort study, we recruited 352 HAs in 24 Croatian towns. The protocol included the following: questionnaires with self-reported skin and atopy symptoms evaluation, Osnabrueck Hand Eczema Severity Index (OHSI) for clinical skin assessment, genotyping FLG (filaggrin) gene mutations, skin pH, and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurements. RESULTS: Self-reported skin symptoms were reported by 12%, history of dry hands by 29%, and history of atopy by 46% of HAs. Skin changes were found at the clinical examination in 18% of the HA. The OHSI score was positively correlated with hand TEWL and hand skin pH in multiple regression linear models. An FLG gene mutation was found in 1 apprentice. CONCLUSIONS: Significant prevalence of clinically observed skin signs on the hands was observed in HAs at the beginning of training. The OHSI score was found to be an independent predictor of higher hand TEWL and skin pH values. The need to ameliorate preventive examinations before the enrolment to hairdressing schools was indicated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207