Analysis of Contact Allergens in Polyvinyl Chloride Examination Gloves in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Background : Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) gloves are recommended as a safe alternative for patients with rubber accelerator allergy. However, allergic contact dermatitis to other chemicals in PVC gloves has been reported. Objective : To analyze single-use PVC medical examination gloves in the United States for the presence of potential contact allergens. Methods : Using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, 20 unique PVC gloves were analyzed in triplicate for 6 chemicals: benzisothiazolinone, bisphenol A, mono(2-ethylhexyl) maleate, tricresyl phosphate, triphenyl phosphate, and triphenyl phosphite. Results : All 20 PVC gloves contained detectable quantities of benzisothiazolinone (range, 0.001–1.48 parts per million [ppm]), bisphenol A (0.01–0.11 ppm), triphenyl phosphate (0.01–2.11 ppm), and triphenyl phosphite (0.001–0.22 ppm). Eighteen (90%) gloves contained mono(2-ethylhexyl) maleate (0.001–0.14 ppm) and 3 (15%) contained tricresyl phosphate (0.001–0.002 ppm). Conclusions : Known allergens were present in all 20 PVC gloves. However, the detected levels were mostly low and their relationship with sensitization and elicitation thresholds requires further study.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".