Skin Reactions to Pimecrolimus Cream 1% in Patients Allergic to Propylene Glycol: A Double-Blind Randomized Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The low concentration of propylene glycol (PG) in pimecrolimus cream makes it unlikely that the cream will induce a PG-related irritant or allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: To assess reactions to pimecrolimus cream in patients who are allergic to PG. METHODS: A pilot double-blind within-patient study in 20 patients, with patch testing followed by a repeated open application test (ROAT). Limitations were that patch tests and ROATs were performed on normal skin, which may be less likely to develop an allergic response than would areas of active dermatitis. RESULTS: Positive PG patch-test results were confirmed in 16 patients. Patch-test scores were compatible with allergic reactions in only two patients. However, ROAT scores were negative for these two patients. Reactions with pimecrolimus or vehicle during ROAT were identified in three patients, but an allergic reaction was uncertain because none of these patients reacted with both pimecrolimus cream and vehicle. Reactions with pimecrolimus were significantly less frequent (p<.01) and less severe (p=.02) than with PG. CONCLUSION: In patients allergic to PG, pimecrolimus cream showed a very low potential to elicit allergic skin reactions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".