MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588449456 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000263

Gallate Contact Dermatitis: Product Update and Systematic Review

2017· review· en· W2588449456 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zachary E. Holcomb, Megan Van Noord, Amber Reck Atwater

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePropyl gallateDermatologyAllergic contact dermatitisContact dermatitisAllergenCosmeticsAllergyPreservativeContact allergyFood scienceAntioxidantOrganic chemistryImmunologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allergic contact dermatitis related to cosmetic use can result from allergens not routinely evaluated by standard patch test protocols. Propyl, octyl, and dodecyl gallates are commonly used antioxidant preservatives with reports of associated allergic contact dermatitis in the literature. The objectives of this review were to investigate the role of gallates in allergic contact dermatitis and to explore products containing these preservatives. A systematic review of the literature through April 2016 was performed to explore cases of reported gallate allergy. Food and cosmetic product databases were searched for products containing gallates. Seventy-four cases of gallate contact allergy have been reported. In addition, a variety of commercially available cosmetic products and foods contain gallate chemicals. Propyl gallate is the most commonly reported gallate contact allergen and often causes facial and/or hand dermatitis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207