Patch Testing with Decyl and Lauryl Glucoside: How Well Does One Screen for Contact Allergic Reactions to the Other?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alkyl glucoside surfactants, present in many cosmetic products, can cause allergic contact dermatitis. Decyl glucoside has been part of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard allergen panel since 2009. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify rates and relevance of positive patch test reactions to decyl and lauryl glucosides and to determine how well one of these glucosides screens for contact allergic reactions to the other. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 897 patients suspected of having a cosmetic-related dermatitis and patch tested with both decyl and lauryl glucosides between 2009 and 2016. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients (5%) had positive reactions to decyl glucoside and/or lauryl glucoside. Among the alkyl glucoside-allergic patients, 65% had positive reactions to both decyl and lauryl glucosides. In 41% of cases, reactions were of definite or probable relevance. In approximately 55% of cases, reactions were of possible relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Sixty-five percent of glucoside-allergic patients exhibited co-reactions to decyl and lauryl glucosides. Thus, neither glucoside is an adequate screen for allergy to the other. Given that these reactions are often relevant, clinicians should patch test with decyl, lauryl, and other alkyl glucosides in cases of suspected cosmetic 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 | 0.001 | 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".