Patch Tests With Fragrance Mix II and Its Components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fragrance mix II (FM II) was initiated to detect contact hypersenstitivity (CH) to fragrances that could not have been identified previously. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this multicenter study was to map the frequency of CH to FM II and its components in Hungary. METHODS: Six centers participated in the survey from 2009 to 2010. A total off 565 patients (434 women and 131 men) with former skin symptoms provoked by scented products were patch tested. The tests were performed with Brial GmbH D-Greven allergens. In the environmental patch test series, FM II, FM I, Myroxylon pereirae, colophonium, wood-tar mix, propolis, and sesquiterpene lactone mix were tested as fragrance allergens. The FM II components (citral, farnesol, coumarin, citronellol, α-hexyl-cinnamaldehyde, and hydroxy-isohexyl-3-cyclohexene-carboxaldehyde [Lyral]) were also tested. RESULTS: Contact hypersenstitivity to any fragrances was detected in 28.8%, to FM II in 17.2% of the patients. Contact hypersenstitivity to hydroxy-isohexyl-3-cyclohexene-carboxaldehyde was observed in 7.3%, to coumarin in 5.1%, to α-hexyl-cinnamaldehyde in 3.5%, to citral in 3.4%, to farnesol in 2.5%, and to citronellol in 1.2%. Of the FM II-positive cases, 48.4% showed isolated CH reaction. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of CH to FM II is 17.2% in the tested, selected Hungarian population. The CH to FM II and its components could not have been revealed without the present test materials.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".