Epidemic of Isothiazolinone Allergy in North America: Prevalence Data From the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2013–2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preservative sensitivity patterns evolve with changing use patterns in products. During the last decade, the use of methylisothiazolinone (MI) at higher concentrations in both leave-on and rinse-off products has significantly increased. This is the first North American Contact Dermatitis Group reporting cycle that includes both methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/MI and MI data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the prevalence of isothiazolinone allergy (MCI/MI and MI) in the North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test population from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014. METHODS: At 13 centers in North America, 4860 patients were patch tested in a standardized manner with a series of 70 allergens, including MCI/MI 0.01% aqueous (aq) and MI 0.2% aq. RESULTS: Three hundred five patients (6.3%) had a positive reaction to MCI/MI; this is a significant increase from the previous cycle (5.0%, 2011-2012; P = 0.011). Five hundred twenty-one patients (10.7%) had a positive reaction to MI. These 2 isothiazolinones were among the most common preservative allergens in the 2013 to 2014 cycle; 11.9% of patch-tested individuals were allergic to 1 or both isothiazolinones. Individuals with MCI/MI and MI allergy were significantly more likely to have occupationally related skin disease (P < 0.0001) and hand dermatitis (P < 0.0001, P = 0.0474). CONCLUSIONS: The epidemic of isothiazolinone sensitivity documented in Europe is now in North America. Patch testing with only MCI/MI 0.01% aq will miss approximately half of isothiazolinone allergy cases, whereas testing with only MI 0.2% aq will miss approximately 10% of isothiazolinone allergy cases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".