Is Quaternium-15 a Formaldehyde Releaser? Correlation between Positive Patch Test Reactions to Formaldehyde and Quaternium-15
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The question of whether quaternium-15 is a formaldehyde releaser is controversial. Understanding this relationship is critical because of the widespread use of quaternium-15 and the need to properly advise formaldehyde-allergic individuals. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to look for an association between allergy to quaternium-15 and formaldehyde by correlating reactions to both and to correlate the intensity of positive patch test results to formaldehyde with reactivity to quaternium-15. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 1905 patients who underwent patch testing for allergic contact dermatitis. Associations were analyzed by χ testing. RESULTS: Of all patients, 9.5% reacted to quaternium-15, 7.2% reacted to formaldehyde, and 5.4% reacted to both (P < 0.001). Of 137, 86 had strong (2 or 3+) and 51 had weak (1+ or +/-) formaldehyde reactions; there was no relationship between the severity of formaldehyde reactivity and responsiveness to quaternium-15 (P = 0.229). Sex analysis did not change these findings. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its retrospective analysis and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: A statistically significant relationship exists between reactivity to quaternium-15 and formaldehyde; however, the severity of the formaldehyde reaction does not predict reactivity to quaternium-15. Despite coreactivity with formaldehyde, quaternium-15 may not be a significant formaldehyde releaser. The coreactivity between quaternium-15 and formaldehyde requires further studies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".