MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188834202 · doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2021.105232

Skin permeation of nickel, cobalt and chromium salts in ex vivo human skin, visualized using mass spectrometry imaging

2021· article· en· W3188834202 on OpenAlexaff
Lina Hagvall, Masoumeh Dowlatshahi Pour, Jiabao Feng, Moshtak Karma, Yolanda S. Hedberg, Per Malmberg

Bibliographic record

VenueToxicology in Vitro · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermeationCobaltChemistryStratum corneumPenetration (warfare)ChromiumNickelMass spectrometryEx vivoHuman skinMetal ions in aqueous solutionMetalSecondary ion mass spectrometryChromatographyNuclear chemistryInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistryBiochemistryIn vitroMembranePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Skin permeation and distribution of three of the most common skin sensitizers was investigated using a previously developed animal-free exposure method combined with imaging mass spectrometry. Nickel, cobalt, and chromium (III) salts were dissolved in a buffer and exposed to human skin ex vivo, to be analyzed using time of flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS). Our findings demonstrate that metal haptens mainly accumulated in the stratum corneum, however all three metal sensitizers could also be detected in the epidermis. Cobalt and chromium (III) species penetrated into the epidermis to a larger extent than nickel species. The degree of penetration into the epidermis is suggested to be affected by the sensitization potency of the metal salts, as well as their speciation, i.e. the amount of the respective metal present in the solution as bioaccessible and solubilised ions. Our method provided permeation profiles in human skin for known sensitizers, on a level of detail that is not possible to achieve by other means. The findings show that the permeation profiles are different, despite these sensitizers being all metal ions and common causes of contact allergy. Studying skin uptake by only considering penetration through the skin might therefore not give accurate results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToxicology in VitroSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207