Epidemiology and Co-Reactivity of Novel Surfactant Allergens: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surfactants are cleansing agents used in products such as shampoos and soaps. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to identify positivity rates to 3 novel amide-containing surfactants (sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, isostearamidopropyl morpholine lactate, and disodium lauroamphodiacetate) and evaluate co-reactivity with other surfactants in patients with known surfactant sensitivity. METHODS: Previously patch-tested, surfactant-positive patients were identified via chart review and invited to participate. Participants were patch tested to screening surfactants (cocamidopropyl betaine, amidoamine, dimethylaminopropylamine, cocamide diethanolamine [DEA], oleamidopropyl dimethylamine, and decyl glucoside), as well as 3 novel surfactants: sodium lauroyl sarcosinate 0.5% and 1.0% aq, isostearamidopropyl morpholine lactate 0.5% and 1.0% aq, disodium lauroamphodiacetate 1.0 and 2.0% aq, and a hypoallergenic liquid cleanser (tested semiopen). Participants and clinicians were blinded. The order of tested allergens was randomized. RESULTS: Forty-seven participants completed the study. Excluding doubtful reactions, positive reactions were most common to oleamidopropyl dimethylamine (34%) and dimethylaminopropylamine (34%), followed by isostearamidopropyl morpholine lactate (23%). Reactivity was not associated with history of childhood eczema. Co-reactivity was high among oleamidopropyl dimethylamine, dimethylaminopropylamine, cocamidopropyl betaine, amidoamine, and isostearamidopropyl morpholine lactate. None of the participants who reacted to cocamide DEA reacted to an additional surfactant. CONCLUSIONS: Isostearamidopropyl morpholine lactate may be an important emerging allergen with sensitivity rates comparable with those of oleamidopropyl dimethylamine and dimethylaminopropylamine. Co-reactivity among surfactants was frequent except for cocamide DEA.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".