MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W157990789 · doi:10.2310/6620.2008.07071

Eyelid Dermatitis: Contact Allergy to 3-(Dimethylamino)propylamine

2008· article· en· W157990789 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eleanor Knopp, Kalman L. Watsky

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsMedicineDermatologyEyelidContact allergyContact dermatitisAllergyPropylamineAllergic contact dermatitisOphthalmologyImmunologyOrganic chemistryAmine gas treating

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the case of a 42-year-old woman with intractable eyelid dermatitis. Patch testing revealed sensitization to 3-(dimethylamino)propylamine (DMAPA). DMAPA is an important etiology of allergic contact dermatitis of the eyelids and face but is easily missed even with expanded-series patch testing. We also review the most common causative allergens in eyelid dermatitis cited in the literature over the past decade. DMAPA is a reagent used in the formation of cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB), a common additive to liquid soaps, shampoos, and other cleansing products because of its utility as a surfactant. Beginning in the 1980s, reports of allergy to CAPB surfaced in the literature. Ultimately, a majority of patch testing studies have shown that clinical allergy to CAPB-containing products actually reflects allergy to contaminant DMAPA in most cases. Amidoamine, another intermediate in the formation of CAPB, may also be implicated through a proposed mechanism of conversion to DMAPA in the skin. When patch-testing for eyelid and facial dermatitis, it is crucial to test with DMAPA directly, not just with CAPB; unlike commercial-grade CAPB, the CAPB in patch test kits is ultrapure and does not contain contaminant DMAPA.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207