MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401102052 · doi:10.1111/cod.14643

Chromium and cobalt in leather: A Danish market survey

2024· article· en· W4401102052 on OpenAlexafffund
Mikkel Bak Jensen, Farzad Alinaghi, I Chen, Jonas Hedberg, Yolanda S. Hedberg, Claus Zachariae, Jeanne Duus Johansen

Bibliographic record

VenueContact Dermatitis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsDanishCobaltChromiumMedicineEnvironmental healthMetallurgyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Leather has been a significant source of chromium (Cr) allergy in Denmark since the 1990s. More recently, cobalt (Co) allergy has been identified in leather as a source of allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVES: To measure Cr and Co levels in Danish leather goods. METHODS: A total of 87 leather samples were collected, all tanned in Europe. Handheld X-ray fluorescence (XRF) device was used to screen for the presence of Cr and Co. The 20 leather samples with the highest concentrations of Co and Co were tested using International Organization for Standardization (ISO)-standards. RESULTS: XRF analysis showed Cr in 78/87 (83.9%) samples and Co in 52/87 (59.7%), with average concentrations of 41 mg/kg (range: 0.0-77 mg/kg) and 0.22 mg/kg (range: 0.0-2.9 mg/kg), respectively. ISO 10195 and 17 075-1 testing identified Cr (VI) in 7 out of 20 samples (1.4; 0.3-4.2 mg/kg), while ISO 17072-1 detected Co in 6 of 20 samples, averaging 3.95 mg/kg (range: 0.22-7.9 mg/kg). CONCLUSION: Most leather samples contained Cr, which was expected, while Cr (VI) was detectable in seven out of twenty tested samples but only detected in one product above the regulatory limit of 3 mg/kg. A potentially significant concentration was found for Co.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContact DermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207