Contact Allergy to Sorbitans: A Follow-up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sorbitan sesquioleate (SSO), an emulsifier in many corticosteroids, was previously found positive in 8.9% of 112 dermatitis patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to present data on 24 of 591 dermatitis patients with reactions to SSO and/or sorbitan monooleate (SMO) on patch testing. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 591 consecutive dermatitis patients patch tested from November 2008 to May 2010. In addition to being tested to a modified North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard series, all patients were tested to a cosmetic series. RESULTS: Of the 591 patients tested, 24 reacted to SSO and/or SMO (4.1%), 19 (3.2%) reacted to SSO alone, 1 (0.17%) to SMO alone, and 4 (0.68%) reacted to both. Of the 24 sorbitan-allergic patients, 2 (8.3%) reacted to any of 4 corticosteroid screening chemicals tested. CONCLUSIONS: In this follow-up study, 4.1% of 591 dermatitis patients reacted to SSO and/or SMO. Given the presence of SSO in many popular topical corticosteroid formulations, clinicians should consider allergy to sorbitans when patients do not improve with topical corticosteroid therapy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".