The Role of Cleaning Products in Epidemic Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Methylchloroisothiazolinone/Methylisothiazolinone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sensitivity to methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI)/methylisothiazolinone (MI) has increased rapidly over recent years. This increase is mainly related to the extensive use of high concentrations of MI in cosmetic products, although a growing number of cases of occupational allergic contact dermatitis are caused by MCI/MI. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the association between the increase in MCI/MI sensitization and the work performed by the patients in our area. METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken of the records of a total of 1179 patients who had undergone contact skin patch tests for MCI/MI from January 2005 to December 2015. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors independently associated with sensitivity to MCI/MI. RESULTS: A constant increase in MCI/MI sensitization was observed over the observation period. The only work associated with a significant increase in the prevalence of MCI/MI sensitization was cleaning, with 38.5% of the cleaning professionals with MCI/MI sensitization consulting for cosmetics-related dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational sensitization to MCI/MI in cleaning professionals is worryingly increasing. This, in turn, could possibly account for many cases of cosmetics-associated contact dermatitis. Our findings suggest that a review of the regulations with regard to isothiazolinone concentrations in industrial and household detergents is necessary.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".