Does the New Standard for Eugenol Designed to Protect against Contact Sensitization Protect Those Sensitized from Elicitation of the Reaction?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Potential fragrance allergens used in daily products should have a concentration limited to levels that are at, or below, acceptable exposure levels based on the quantitative risk assessment for the induction of dermal sensitization. To date, there are insufficient data to discern any quantitative relationship between induction and elicitation concentrations for fragrance ingredients that have a potential for dermal sensitization. When available, these data should be used to confirm the effectiveness of quantitative risk assessment-based risk management procedures. OBJECTIVE: In this study, the relationship between the allergen concentration and the time to elicit allergic contact dermatitis in eugenol-sensitized patients was studied. The products used to elicit allergic contact dermatitis had a concentration of eugenol that was equal to, or below, the International Fragrance Association standard. METHODS: Volunteers with and without known sensitization to eugenol were patch tested with various concentrations of eugenol (dilution series) and also underwent repeated open application tests (ROATs). This study model has previously been successfully used with stronger sensitizers. RESULTS: In this study, allergic contact dermatitis, as evidenced by a positive ROAT, could not be elicited by any of the concentrations studied, including in those patients where the patch tests were positive. CONCLUSIONS: When tested in a 3-week ROAT at, or below, its current International Fragrance Association Standard, eugenol did not induce reactions even in those known to be sensitized. Whether this represents a false-negative result for a weak allergen is unknown.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".