Sensitivity of Petrolatum and Aqueous Vehicles for Detecting Allergy to Imidazolidinylurea, Diazolidinylurea, and DMDM Hydantoin: A Retrospective Analysis from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether petrolatum or aqueous vehicles are more sensitive for detecting allergy to imidazolidinylurea (IU), diazolidinylurea (DU), and dimethylol dimethyl hydantoin (DM). The relationship of these allergens to formaldehyde sensitivity was also explored. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients patch-tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group. All patients were simultaneously tested to seven allergens (formaldehyde, IU in petrolatum [pet], IU aqueous [aq], DU pet, DU aq, DM pet, and DM aq). Data were analyzed in pairs with various "gold standard" definitions of "true allergy" and adjusting for correlated data. RESULTS: Reaction to at least one of the seven allergens occurred in 2,398 patients. In all cases except one (which just approached statistical significance), the petrolatum-based allergen was statistically significantly more sensitive than the same allergen in an aqueous base. Most of the patients allergic to the three preservatives were also allergic to formaldehyde, but most formaldehyde-allergic patients were not allergic to the IU, DU, or DM. CONCLUSION: Of these two vehicles, petrolatum is significantly more sensitive than an aqueous vehicle is for detecting allergy to IU, DU, and DM.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".