Methylisothiazolinone Contact Allergy Prevalence in Western Canada: Increased Detection With 2000 ppm Patch Test Allergen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact allergy to methylisothiazolinone (MI) or to the combination of methylchloroisothiazolinone and MI (MCI/MI) is an important and increasing cause of allergic contact dermatitis, with prevalence rates higher than 10% in some centers. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this retrospective chart review is to provide a western Canadian perspective on whether the positive patch testing rate to MCI/MI or MI increased during the testing period of 2008 to 2015 and whether the addition of MI at 2000 ppm resulted in increased detection. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who tested positive (n = 104) of 2177 total patients who were patch tested for MCI/MI or MI at a community dermatology clinic in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, from January 2008 through April 2015. RESULTS: One hundred and four patients had positive patch testing results for MCI/MI, MI, or both. Positive results increased over the study period, with the highest prevalence in 2015 at 9.41% for MCI/MI, 12.94% for MI, and 15.29% for either. When testing for MI at 2000 ppm was introduced in 2013, the initial positive patch testing prevalence was 6.6%, followed by 10.1% in 2014, and 12.9% in 2015. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate an increasing prevalence of MCI/MI and MI allergy between 2008 and 2015, with the highest prevalence of 15.29% in 2015 for MCI/MI and/or MI allergy. The addition of MI 2000 ppm greatly increased the positive patch testing yield for MI. Our results support the importance of continued efforts to monitor and regulate these preservatives.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".