Allergenicity and Cross-Reactivity of Coconut Oil Derivatives: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Counseling of patients with cocamidopropyl betaine (CAPB) allergy is difficult because the cross-reactivity of CAPB with other coconut-derived surfactants, coconut oil, and coconut fatty acids is largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To provide pilot data regarding the cross-reactivity and allergenicity of surfactants derived from coconut oil. METHODS: A randomized double-blind controlled pilot study of 10 control patients and 12 patients previously found to be allergic to CAPB. Eleven coconut-derived surfactants, as well as coconut oil and lauric acid, were applied in random order according to standardized patch-test procedures with readings at 48 and 92 hours. The primary outcome measure was the frequency of positive patch-test reactions to each allergen. RESULTS: Only 3 of the 12 patients with previous reactions to CAPB reacted on retesting, and all of these reactions were doubtful. Fifty-nine percent of the study patients had reactions to triethanolamine polyethylene glycol-3 (TEA-PEG-3) cocamide sulfate as compared to none of the controls (p = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Reactions to CAPB were only 25% reproducible. These results substantiate previous experience that doubtful and mild reactions to CAPB may represent irritant reactions as opposed to true allergic reactions. TEA-PEG-3 cocamide sulfate was the only agent that had a statistically significant higher rate of reactions in the study group as compared to the control group.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".