Occupational Contact Dermatitis Caused by Artichokes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Few cases of skin diseases caused by exposure to artichokes have been published. Artichokes contain sesquiterpene lactones, which are known to be sensitizing. Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) has also been diagnosed. To our knowledge, no protein contact dermatitis (PCD) has yet been reported to be induced by artichoke. Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify the different types of contact dermatitis that may be due to occupational exposure to artichokes and the professions concerned. Materials and Methods: We conducted a descriptive study, retrieving data from the French national database of occupational diseases for the period of 2001 to 2018. Results: Fifty-six cases were retrieved, and 10 cases were included in this study after data analysis and reading the clinical reports: 7 allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), 2 PCD, and 1 ICD caused by artichokes. Patients were farmers (4), agri-food workers (3), market gardener (1), cashier (1), and store employee (1). Conclusions: This is the first series of occupational contact dermatitis that can be induced by artichokes. Exposure to artichokes can lead to ICD, ACD, PCD, and perhaps contact urticaria. The sesquiterpene lactone mix patch test is not always sufficient to confirm an ACD by artichokes. Irritant contact dermatitis can be associated with ACD from artichokes or evolve on its own.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".