Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article gives an overview of fragrance allergy. The following subjects are discussed: composition of perfumes, contact with fragrances, diagnosing fragrance allergy, frequency of allergy, clinical picture of allergic contact dermatitis, culprit products, occupational contact dermatitis, and other adverse effects of fragrances. For diagnosing fragrance sensitization, personal products and a fragrance series may need to be tested in addition to the baseline series. In the general adult population, up to 4.5% may be allergic to fragrance materials, and in consecutive patients patch tested for suspected contact dermatitis, the frequency may reach 20% to 25%. More than 150 fragrances have caused contact allergy. The most frequent sensitizers are linalool and limonene hydroperoxides, hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, treemoss and oakmoss absolute, isoeugenol, cinnamyl alcohol, and cinnamal. Culprit products for induction of sensitization are often deodorants, fine fragrances, and aftershaves. Occupational contact dermatitis from fragrances is seen occasionally. Other adverse effects are all discussed but occur infrequently.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".