Etiology of Hand Dermatitis among Patients Referred for Patch Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hand dermatitis affects many people and has numerous causes. Few reports have looked at the etiology of hand dermatitis across broad demographics. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this investigation were to (1) determine the causes of hand dermatitis in the population patch-tested at a dermatologic referral clinic, (2) report occupations frequently associated with hand dermatitis, and (3) indicate which substances were the more common allergens among individuals evaluated by patch testing for hand dermatitis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patch-test data on 1,034 patients who were evaluated during an 8-year period was performed. RESULTS: Hand dermatitis affected 32% of all patients who underwent patch testing. Allergic contact dermatitis was diagnosed most often (54.4%), followed by irritant contact dermatitis (27.4%). Among women, irritant contact dermatitis of the hands peaked in the third decade and then diminished whereas allergic contact dermatitis of the hands remained fairly constant among patients between 21 and 60 years of age. In contrast, irritant contact dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis in men peaked in the fifth decade of life. In both genders, hand dermatitis was rare among those 20 years of age or younger and among those 61 years of age or older. Fifty-six percent of hand dermatitis was related to occupation. Health care workers were most often affected by occupational hand dermatitis. The most common allergens for both occupational and non-occupational hand dermatitis were quaternium-15, formaldehyde, thiuram mix, and carba mix. CONCLUSIONS: Since more than half of hand dermatitis cases may be related to occupation, a thorough history should be taken by a knowledgeable clinician. Potentially relevant allergens in the workplace must be identified and tested. These allergens may not be contained in standard trays.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".