Vapor Pressure and Predicted Stability of American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate patch testing is reliant on proper preparation of patch test allergens. The stability of patch test allergens is dependent on several factors including vapor pressure (VP). OBJECTIVE: This investigation reviews the VP of American Contact Dermatitis Society Core Allergens and compares stability predictions based on VP with those established through clinical testing. METHODS: Standard references were accessed for determining VP in millimeters of mercury and associated temperature in degrees celsius. If multiple values were listed, VP at temperatures that most approximate indoor storage conditions (20°C and 25°C) were chosen. For mixes, the individual component with the highest VP was chosen as the overall VP, assuming that the most volatile substance would evaporate first. Antigens were grouped into low (≤0.001 mm Hg), moderate (<1 to >0.001 mm Hg), and high (≥1 mm Hg) volatility using arbitrary cutoff values. CONCLUSIONS: This review is consistent with previously reported data on formaldehyde, acrylates, and fragrance material instability. Given lack of testing data, VP can be useful in predicting patch test compound stability. Measures such as air-tight multidose reagent containers, sealed single-application dispensers, preparation of patches immediately before application, and storage at lower temperatures may remedy some of these issues.
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) | 0.001 | 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".