Acute Allergic Contact Dermatitis of the Lips from Peppermint Oil in a Lip Balm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The etiology of cheilitis is often not readily apparent. We present a case series of four patients with allergic contact cheilitis (ACC) secondary to exposure to peppermint oil contained in a lip balm product. These patients developed eczematous dermatitis involving their lips and perioral skin. They were tested with the North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard series as well as with an expanded series of flavoring agents, sunscreens, plant and fragrance components, and their own products. The lip balm contained potential sensitizers such as propolis, lanolin, coconut oil, almond oil, peppermint oil, and vitamin E. Our patch-test results showed that peppermint oil was the most likely culprit in these patients' ACC. Peppermint oil is less commonly reported as causing ACC than are more common contactants such as balsam of Peru or nickel sulfate. However, with the widespread use of lip balms containing peppermint oil, more cases of peppermint oil-induced ACC may be expected.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".