Alergia ao Látex em Contexto Ocupacional
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction/framework/objectives Latex allergy is recognized as a widespread health problem that assumed serious proportions in the 1990s. Although preventive measures have markedly decreased its incidence, recent studies have shown that it remains an important health problem in certain population groups, particularly in developing countries. This work aims to provide a comprehensive review of the current status of occupational latex allergies. We summarize various aspects of this condition, such as prevalence, risk groups, latex allergens, the diagnostic approach, prevention, and treatment. Methodology A bibliographic review was carried out in January 2023 in the following databases: PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Evidence-based Medicine, Canadian Medical Association, Practice Guidelines and National Guideline Clearinghouse. Content Repeated exposure to latex in an occupational context can lead to worker sensitivity, with a significant clinical and socio-economic impact. We summarize various aspects of this condition, such as prevalence, risk groups, latex allergens, the diagnostic approach, prevention and treatment. Discussion and Conclusions The history of latex allergies has demonstrated that potent allergens such as Natural Rubber Latex proteins can cause rapid immunoglobulin-E-mediated sensitization and clinical allergies, reaching serious proportions in highly exposed individuals. Occupational exposure has a decisive influence on the allergen sensitivity profile, with important clinical and therapeutic consequences. The effectiveness of secondary prevention measures is limited. Thus, it is essential to implement early primary prevention measures in individuals belonging to risk groups, to avoid or minimize exposure to latex allergens. KEYWORDS: Healthcare Professionals, Latex allergy, Latex gloves, Latex hypersensitivity, Natural rubber latex, Occupational diseases, Occupational health, Occupational Medicine.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".