Multicentre patch test study of air‐oxidized ethoxylated surfactants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Frequent exposure to water and surfactants is considered to be the main cause of hand eczema from wet work. Ethoxylated surfactants are susceptible to oxidation and some of the oxidation products formed have proved to be contact sensitizers in guinea pigs. The question of human sensitization to oxidized surfactants was addressed in a multicentre study in the Stockholm region. 528 consecutive dermatitis patients were patch tested with widely used ethoxylated surfactants in oxidized and non-oxidized form as well as certain identified oxidation compounds. 61 patients presented with mild, clearly irritant reactions to some of the surfactants tested. 18 patients showed not only erythema but also oedema and/or papules and vesicles, using a morphologic descriptive system for reading the patch test reactions. These reactions occurred mostly to oxidized surfactants and oxidation products. When retesting 9 of these 18 patients only an allergic reaction to acetaldehyde was confirmed. We conclude that oxidized ethoxylated surfactants have increased irritant potential compared to non-oxidized material. Our working hypothesis is that oxidized surfactants of technical quality exert a lower risk of sensitization than do oxidized homologous pure surfactants. Among the potential allergens formed during autoxidation, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde must be considered as a source of unexpected exposure.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".