Propolis, Colophony, and Fragrance Cross-Reactivity and Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colophony and propolis are among the complex plant resins used in a wide variety of medicinal and personal care products. A number of studies of colophony, propolis, and fragrance mixes suggest that contact with one of these allergens may increase the risk of delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions with additional compounds of significant cross-reactivity. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to determine rates of cross-reactivity between propolis, colophony, and different fragrance mixes and to determine significant cross-reactivity thresholds for which to counsel patient avoidance. METHODS: Rates of cross-reactivity were calculated from the databases of 2 midwestern US patch testing centers. Rates were calculated both separately and collectively. CONCLUSIONS: For patients allergic to colophony, fragrance and propolis may be considered significant cross-reactors. For patients allergic to propolis, fragrance and colophony may be considered significant cross-reactors. Cross-reactions between colophony, propolis, and fragrance mixes are unidirectional so, for patients allergic to fragrance, cross-reaction to propolis or colophony is not significant. Colophony allergy is found in only a small number of fragrance-allergic patients and is not a good indicator for fragrance allergy.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it