Role of Body Piercing in the Induction of Metal Allergies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Metal allergies have been linked to body piercing in women, but few studies have explored this phenomenon in men. It has been postulated that nickel/cobalt and nickel/palladium exhibit coreactivity in patients allergic to metals. Objectives: (1) Determine the incidence rate and the source for the induction of metal allergy in 3 groups of men: unpierced, one site-pierced, and multiple sites-pierced; and (2) evaluate the degree of coreactivity between nickel/cobalt and nickel/palladium. Methods: Men aged 18 to 43 years (n = 118) were patch-tested using the North American Contact Dermatitis Group's protocol to nickel sulfate 2.5%, gold sodium thiosulfate 0.5%, cobalt chloride 1%, and palladium chloride 1%. Results: Eleven (9.3%) subjects had at least 1 positive reaction. When characterized by the number of pierced sites, positive reactions were seen in 2 of 50 (4.0%) unpierced, 3 of 27 (11.1%) one site-pierced, and 6 of 41 (14.6%) multiply pierced men. The number of piercings was a statistically significant predictor of metal allergy (P= .04). Four (66.7%) cobalt and no palladium reactions occurred in nickel-positive subjects. The source for the induction of the allergic response was primarily jewelry, which accounted for 5 of 6 nickel allergies and 2 of 3 gold allergies. Silver jewelry was a significant predictor of an allergic response. Conclusion: This study represents the first report that the number of body piercings has positive bearing on the incidence of metal allergy in men. The data also support the theory of coreactivity for nickel/cobalt, but not for nickel/palladium.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".