Contact Allergy to Hydroperoxides of Linalool and d -Limonene in a US Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Linalool and D-limonene are common fragrance ingredients that readily oxidize on exposure to air. The resulting hydroperoxides of linalool and D-limonene have been shown to have high frequencies of positive patch test reactions in several European and international studies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence of contact allergy to the hydroperoxides of linalool and D-limonene in a US population. METHODS: In this retrospective study, 103 patients with suspected fragrance allergy were patch tested to linalool 10% petrolatum (pet), hydroperoxides of linalool 1% pet, D-limonene 10% pet, and/or the hydroperoxides of D-limonene 0.3% pet between July 9, 2014, and October 25, 2016. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the frequency of positive patch test reactions to the hydroperoxides of linalool is 20% (19/96), and the frequency of positive reactions to the hydroperoxides of D-limonene is 8% (7/90). These high frequencies suggest that patch testing to the hydroperoxides of linalool and limonene should be performed in all patients with suspected fragrance allergy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".