Methylchloroisothiazolinone and Methylisothiazolinone Allergic Contact Dermatitis and the Effect of Patch Test Concentration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The isothiazolinones methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) are the active ingredients in a frequently used preservative in cosmetic, household, and industrial products. OBJECTIVES: This study reviewed our department's cases of allergic contact dermatitis caused by MCI/MI, outlining their clinical presentation and possible sources of sensitization. The effect of changing the concentration of MCI/MI from 0.01% to 0.02% in the British Society for Cutaneous Allergy baseline series was also measured. METHODS: A total of 964 patients were patch tested to the British Society for Cutaneous Allergy baseline series in our department over 4 years. Patients were tested either to 0.01% MCI/MI (697) or 0.02% MCI/MI (267). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (2.2%) had positive reactions to MCI/MI. Of patients tested to 0.02% MCI/MI, 3.8% had a positive reaction compared with 1.6% of those tested to MCI/MI 0.01%. Ten patients (48%) had perianal dermatitis; of these, 50% had used moist toilet wipes. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight MCI/MI as important contact allergens found in moist toilet wipes and should be considered particularly in patients with facial, hand, and perianal allergic contact dermatitis. Patch testing to 0.01% MCI/MI may underestimate its allergenic potential, missing more than half of allergic cases compared with testing to 0.02%. To identify isothiazolinone allergy, we recommend that 0.02% MCI/MI should be used in baseline series.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".