MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382045103 · doi:10.1016/j.tiv.2023.105636

Skin permeation studies of chromium species – Evaluation of a reconstructed human epidermis model

2023· article· en· W4382045103 on OpenAlexafffund
Lina Hagvall, Marwa Munem, Mai H. Philipsen, Masoumeh Dowlatshahi Pour, Yolanda S. Hedberg, Per Malmberg

Bibliographic record

VenueToxicology in Vitro · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLawson Health Research Institute
FundersKungliga Tekniska HögskolanCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsEx vivoHuman skinPenetration (warfare)Stratum corneumEpidermis (zoology)In vivoPermeationChromiumPopulationBiophysicsChemistryAnatomyPathologyBiologyBiochemistryMedicineMembrane

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A reconstructed human epidermis (RHE) model, the EpiDerm, was investigated and compared to human skin ex vivo regarding tissue penetration and distribution of two chromium species, relevant in both occupational and general exposure in the population. Imaging mass spectrometry was used in analysis of the sectioned tissue. The RHE model gave similar results compared to human skin ex vivo for skin penetration of CrVI. However, the penetration of CrIII into the tissue of the RHE model compared to human skin ex vivo differed markedly, such that in the RHE model the CrIII species accumulated in the tissue layer corresponding to stratum corneum whereas in human skin ex vivo, the CrIII species penetrated evenly through the skin tissue. Further, skin lipids such as cholesterol were less abundant in the RHE model compared to the human skin tissue. Results presented here indicate that the RHE models do not possess the same fundamental properties as human skin tissue. As the RHE models appear to be able to give false negative results, experiments using RHE models for the study of skin penetration should be evaluated with caution.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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