Occupational Contact Dermatitis in Hospital Cleaning Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health care workers and hospital cleaning workers are at high risk regarding the development of occupational contact dermatitis (OCD). OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and risk factors of OCD in hospital cleaning workers. METHODS: A questionnaire was conducted in 245 cleaning workers in our cross-sectional study. The 236 cleaning workers formed the study group. In workers who were prediagnosed with dermatitis, physical examination was performed in the Dermatology Outpatient Clinic, and when necessary, patch test, skin biopsy, and investigation for total immunoglobulin E were conducted. Patients with definite contact dermatitis were diagnosed as having OCD by using the Mathias criteria. RESULTS: The prevalence rate of OCD was 21.6% and was significantly higher in female workers (26.4%) when compared with male workers (11.0%). Female sex; low educational level; cleaning the external surfaces of the medical equipment, monitors, and accessories; and mixing the cleaning products and use them while performing cleaning activities were determined as the independent risk factors for OCD. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational contact dermatitis was present at a high rate in hospital cleaning workers. The risk factors should be taken into consideration for prevention of OCD and improvement of the health status of hospital cleaning workers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 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 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".