Occupational contact dermatitis: Return to work using a multidisciplinary clinic model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational contact dermatitis often results in work disruption. Return-to-work (RTW) is an important outcome. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine RTW outcomes and factors associated with such outcomes using a multidisciplinary clinic model. METHODS: Chart abstraction was performed for 194 workers who received RTW assistance over a 6-year period. Elements abstracted included demographic and diagnostic information and information about the RTW program including principles, program components, barriers, and facilitators. RESULTS: Of the 902 workers seen for dermatologic assessment, 194 received RTW assistance. At initial assessment, 37% were not working because of their skin disease, and at follow-up, 7% were not working because of their skin disease. The RTW plan components included a graduated or trial of RTW, specific recommendations for avoiding exposure, personal protective equipment, skin management, and ongoing skin monitoring. Principles associated with successful RTW included good communication and the availability of modified work and a worker adherence to the plan. Barriers included lack of modified work, unresponsive employers, and ongoing skin problems. CONCLUSIONS: Specific approaches are important to identify if RTW is to be successful for workers with occupational contact dermatitis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".