Allergic contact dermatitis associated with reactive dyes in a dark garment: a case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we present a case of a patient who has not been occupationally exposed to reactive dyes, but did present with a dermatitis from wearing a dark cotton garment. The patient experienced reactivation of his dermatitis when rewearing a new unwashed dark T-shirt made of 100% cotton (in fact, the patient reported that it had to be washed at least 3 times before the skin reaction disappeared). He presented positive patch tests to 6 reactive dyes from Chemotechnique textile series. The clothing could not be proved as the true cause of the dermatitis, but resolution occurred upon removal of the suspected garment. This suggests that contact allergy to the reactive dyes (he did not react to any other dyes and his garment was a natural fabric) was likely responsible. With this report, we would like to emphasize that reactive dyes, as a class, should be considered as potential allergens, both occupationally and from non-occupational exposure such as garments. If garments containing reactive dyes are not properly rinsed in the manufacturing process, we believe that excess of dye can be retained that may cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). As the reactive dyes and their hydrolysis products are very water-soluble, they can be easily washed off to prevent ACD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".