Relevance of Positive Patch-Test Reactions to Cocamidopropyl Betaine and Amidoamine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB) is a surfactant, primarily used in personal cleansing products, that may cause allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Amidoamine (AA), a by-product and a known contaminant in CAPB synthesis, may be the true allergen responsible for some cases of CAPB allergy. Co-reactivity with these allergens and cocamide diethanolamine (CDEA) and formaldehyde has been noted anecdotally. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated (1) the correlation and clinical relevance of positive patch-test reactions to CAPB and AA in cases of ACD and (2) the rate of positive reactions to CDEA and formaldehyde in these patients. METHODS: Patients with patch-test reactions to either CAPB or AA during 2001 were retrospectively identified. Relevance of reactions to CAPB and AA was then graded as definite, probable, or not relevant, based on patient follow-up. The proportion of these patients who also had positive reactions to CDEA or formaldehyde was noted. RESULTS: Of 957 patch-tested patients, 49 had positive reactions to either CAPB (42.9%) or AA (34.3%) or to both (22.8%). Of these patients, 35 were available for follow-up. Twenty-nine (83.0%) of these patients identified the surfactant in their home products. In all of these patients, the dermatitis was felt to be due in whole or in part to CAPB exposure. Two patients (5.7%) had a positive reaction to CDEA, and 8 patients (23%) had a positive reaction to formaldehyde. CONCLUSION: Patch testing with both CAPB and AA identifies patients with ACD relevant to exposure to CAPB. Since few patients react to both allergens, testing with both separately is useful. Formaldehyde allergy was overrepresented in CAPB-allergic patients in this series of patients.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".