Reduced Isocyanate Release Using a Waterproof, Resin-Based Cast Alternative Relative to Fiberglass Casts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of occupational isocyanate exposure range from asthma and contact dermatitis to neurotoxicity and cancer. Respiratory sensitization due to orthopedic cast application has been well documented. This study aims to compare the safety of standard-of-care fiberglass casts and a novel waterproof cast alternative by measuring the amount of isocyanate released during off-gassing over time. A 3D-printed arm simulator with comparable casing material amounts was placed in a sealed chamber. An isocyanate-sensing color-changing (SafeAir) tag was used to measure the levels of toxic exposure. Triplicate trials were conducted across all time periods (15 min, 1 h, and 24 h) and conditions. The bare arm simulator and freshly opened tags served as negative controls. Normalized pixel intensity indexes and isocyanate release estimates in ppb were derived from ImageJ-analyzed SafeAir tag photos. Fiberglass casts exhibited greater isocyanate release than both the waterproof alternative (p = 0.0002) and no-cast controls (p = 0.0006), particularly at 24 h. The waterproof alternative and no-cast control did not statistically differ (p = 0.1603). Therefore, the waterproof alternative released less isocyanate than the fiberglass casts. Waterproof cast alternatives may be safer than fiberglass by limiting medical professionals’ exposure to toxic isocyanates and, thus, decreasing their risk of suffering occupational asthma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".