Methylchloroisothiazolinone/Methylisothiazolinone and Methylisothiazolinone Allergy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preservatives used in cosmetics tend to be, by their nature, allergenic. Methylisothiazolinone (MI) has been used as a sole preservative in multiple cosmetics, household goods, and toiletries. A current epidemic of MI has recently been reported in Europe. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to study the prevalence of methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI (MCI/MI) and MI allergy in a Bangkok dermatology clinic. METHODS: During January 2009 to June 2014, 3253 consecutive patients tested with 100 ppm (0.01%) MCI/MI and patients tested with 2000 ppm (0.2%) MI were included in the study. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty of 3253 patients (9.8%) tested for MCI/MI had a positive reaction. There was a steep increase in the prevalence of MCI/MI contact allergy from 4.8% in 2009 to 11.2% in 2011 and 17% in 2013. In the first 6 months of 2014, 22 of 54 cases tested for MI (40.7%) had a positive reaction. Among those who had a positive reaction to MI, 6 of 22 (27.3%) showed negative reaction to MCI/MI. CONCLUSIONS: There is a similar prevalence of MI allergy in a Bangkok dermatology clinic as those reported in European centers such in the United Kingdom.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".