MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465947625 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000193

Essential Oils, Part III: Chemical Composition

2016· review· en· W2465947625 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anton C. de Groot, Erich Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEucalyptolLimoneneEssential oilAnetholeLinaloolEucalyptus globulusTerpeneLavenderalpha-PineneCarvoneCamphorEstragoleEucalyptus oilChemistryFood scienceBotanyOrganic chemistryEucalyptusBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data on the chemistry of essential oils which have caused contact allergy are provided. The largest group of chemicals found in essential oils consists of terpenes. The number of identified components usually ranges from 100 to 250, but in some oils (lavender, geranium, rosemary) 450 to 500 chemicals have been found. Many chemicals are present in a large number of oils, up to 98% for β-caryophyllene and 97% for limonene. Chemicals that are important constituents of >20 oils are limonene, linalool, and α-pinene. In many essential oils, there are 2 to 5 components which together constitute over 50% to 60% of the oil. In some oils, however, there is one dominant ingredient, making up more than 50% of the oil, including (E)-anethole in aniseed and star anise oil, carvone in spearmint oil, 1,8-cineole (eucalyptol) in Eucalyptus globulus oil, and (E)-cinnamaldehyde in cassia oil. The most important chemicals in 93 individual oils are specified.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations135
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207