Positive Patch-Test Reactions to Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate: Retrospective Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, from 1998 to 2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC), a commonly used preservative, is found in industrial and personal care products. OBJECTIVE: to evaluate prevalence, clinical relevance, occupational relationship, and sources of positive reactions to IPBC in patients in North America. METHODS: the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) tested IPBC 0.1% and/or 0.5% in petrolatum (pet) between 1998 and 2008. Two patient groups of interest were defined, based on patch-test reactions to IPBC: weak (+) reactors and strong (++ or +++) reactors. Patient characteristics, site(s) of dermatitis, sources of positive reactions, clinical relevance, and occupational relevance to IPBC were tabulated. RESULTS: of the 25,321 patients tested, there were 226 (0.9%) weak reactors and 67 (0.3%) strong reactors. For IPBC-positive patients, the most frequent sites of dermatitis were scattered generalized distribution, hands, and arms. The majority (> 50%) of currently relevant reactions were to personal care products, and most reactions (> 90%) were not related to occupation. Only four of the strong reactors had definite clinical relevance (positive use-test reaction or positive patch-test reaction to a product containing IPBC). The frequency of positive reactions increased (0.2% vs 1.5%) when the higher concentration of IPBC was utilized, but most (> 64%) were weak reactions, of which some were likely irritant. CONCLUSIONS: allergy to IPBC is relatively uncommon. When clinically relevant, personal care products were the most likely allergen source. Because IPBC is a marginal irritant, caution should be utilized when testing with higher concentrations of IPBC (≥ 0.5% pet) and when interpreting weak (+) reactions. Verification of clinical relevance by use test or repeat patch testing or both is also important.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".