Allergic Contact Stomatitis Caused by (Meth)acrylates in a Gingival Protection Product Used during Teeth Whitening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dermatitis®Ahead of Print Pearls & ZebrasAllergic Contact Stomatitis Caused by (Meth)acrylates in a Gingival Protection Product Used During Teeth WhiteningMichitaro Hayakawa, Yuko Baba, and Michiyoshi KounoMichitaro Hayakawahttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1175-3780From the Department of Dermatology, Tokyo Dental College, Ichikawa General Hospital, Ichikawa, Japan.Search for more papers by this author, Yuko BabaAddress reprint requests to Yuko Baba, MD, PhD, Department of Dermatology, Tokyo Dental College, Ichikawa General Hospital, Sugano 5-11-13, Ichikawa, Chiba 272-8513, Japan, E-mail Address: [email protected]From the Department of Dermatology, Tokyo Dental College, Ichikawa General Hospital, Ichikawa, Japan.Search for more papers by this author, and Michiyoshi KounoFrom the Department of Dermatology, Tokyo Dental College, Ichikawa General Hospital, Ichikawa, Japan.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:24 Aug 2023https://doi.org/10.1089/derm.2023.0180AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View article"Allergic Contact Stomatitis Caused by (Meth)acrylates in a Gingival Protection Product Used During Teeth Whitening." Dermatitis®, , pp. FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 0Issue 0 Information© 2023 American Contact Dermatitis Society. All Rights Reserved.To cite this article:Michitaro Hayakawa, Yuko Baba, and Michiyoshi Kouno.Allergic Contact Stomatitis Caused by (Meth)acrylates in a Gingival Protection Product Used During Teeth Whitening.Dermatitis®.ahead of printhttp://doi.org/10.1089/derm.2023.0180Online Ahead of Print:August 24, 2023PDF download
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.006 |
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".