Contact Sensitization to Emulsifying Agents: An Underrated Issue?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evidence on the safety of topical preparations containing emulsifiers is limited. OBJECTIVES: The aims of the study were to assess (1) the prevalence of sensitization to some emulsifiers commonly found in topical products, (2) the sensitization to emulsifiers in relation to sex, age, and predisposing factors, and (3) the frequency of concomitant sensitization to other common allergens. METHODS: All consecutive patients presenting to the Allergy Unit of our Dermatological Department for allergological investigation were enrolled. All patients were patch tested with the Italian Società Italiana di Dermatologia Allergologica Professionale ed Ambientale baseline series and an additional emulsifiers series. Doubtful patch test reactions were not considered. RESULTS: Of 310 patients, 50 (16%) were sensitized to emulsifiers with 72 positive reactions. Lauryl polyethylene glycol/polypropylene glycol-18/18 methicone gave 26 positive reactions, glyceryl oleate 19, myristyl alcohol, and Amerchol L101 11. Concomitant sensitization to emulsifiers was found in 16 patients. Patients allergic to emulsifiers showed concomitant allergic reactions to allergens commonly found in cosmetics. No significant differences by sex, age, atopic diathesis, and clinical pattern at presentation were noticed. CONCLUSIONS: Contact allergy to emulsifiers is more frequent than reported. Patients allergic to emulsifiers show frequent positive patch tests to other constituents of cosmetics and topical products.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".