Multicenter Patch Testing With Methylchloroisothizoline/Methylisothiazolinone in 100 and 200 ppm Within the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) is a well-known contact sensitizer. Historically, there have been different opinions on the optimal patch test concentration of MCI/MI, and both 0.01% and 0.02% aqueous (aq.) have been proposed. In 2011, based on literature reviews, it was recommended that the concentration of 0.02% aq. should be used in the international baseline series. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to verify the recommendation from 2011 by comparing the patch test results from consecutive patch testing with MCI/MI 0.01% and 0.02% in clinics representing countries around the world. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two thousand seven hundred three consecutive patients with dermatitis in 8 dermatology clinics representing 8 countries were patch tested with MCI/MI 0.01% aq. and, in parallel with MCI/MI 0.02% aq., provisionally included in the baseline series. RESULTS: Contact allergy to MCI/MI at 0.01% and 0.02% was found in 3.7% and 5.6% of the patients, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI 0.02% aq. (dose, 6 μg/cm) diagnoses significantly more contact allergy than 0.01% (dose, 3 μg/cm), without resulting in more adverse reactions. Methylchloroisothiazolinone/MI at 0.02% aq. should therefore be continuously used in the international baseline series.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".