Sorbitan Sesquioleate, a Common Emulsifier in Topical Corticosteroids, Is an Important Contact Allergen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the past, sorbitan sesquioleate (SSO) was reported as an uncommon allergen, but recent data suggest SSO may be an important sensitizer. OBJECTIVE: To present data on 13 of 112 dermatitis patients who reacted to SSO and/or sorbitan monooleate (SMO) on patch testing. METHODS: A retrospective data analysis was conducted on data from 112 dermatitis patients patch-tested from December 2006 to May 2007. All patients were tested with a modified North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard series, a cosmetic series, and a fragrance series. RESULTS: Of 112 patients, 10 (8.9%) reacted to SSO, 1 (0.9%) to SMO, and 2 (1.8%) to both. Nine of 12 (75%) SSO-positive patients were using topical corticosteroids emulsified with sorbitan derivatives or sorbitol; 2 of the 13 sorbitan-allergic patients were allergic to one or more corticosteroid screening chemicals tested. CONCLUSION: SSO is a common emulsifier derived from sorbitol and is used in many high- to super-potent corticosteroids. It has only recently been identified as an important contact allergen. The high prevalence of reactions to sorbitol derivatives in this small group of patients suggests that these chemicals may be sensitizing when applied to dermatitic skin. Larger studies should be conducted to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".