Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multidisciplinary collaboration between several European dermatology departments has identified isobornyl acrylate (IBOA; CAS 5888-33-5), once deemed a low-risk sensitizer, as a major culprit contact allergen in glucose sensors and insulin pumps, medical devices used by diabetes patients worldwide. Although the patch test modalities of IBOA have been fairly well characterized, intriguing questions remain. For example, its cross-reactive profile to other acrylates remains to be determined, and the striking occurrence of concomitant positive patch test reactions to sesquiterpene lactones needs to be further elucidated. Importantly, the path to its discovery as a contact sensitizer in diabetes devices and the difficulties that were associated with this quest illustrate that apparent difficulties in obtaining sufficient cooperation from the medical device industry may seriously hamper the correct workup of cases of allergic contact dermatitis. The IBOA saga will convince companies to lend more cooperation to dermatologists and policymakers to side with patients and physicians when it comes to updating medical device regulations, including the compulsory labeling of medical devices in general and of diabetes devices in particular.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.015 |
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".