MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cinnamon Spice and Everything Not Nice: Many Features of Intraoral Allergy to Cinnamic Aldehyde

2015· review· en· W307319924 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineToothpasteDentifriceDermatologyDentistryChewing gumAllergic contact dermatitisFood scienceAllergyFluoride

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intraoral allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an uncommonly reported entity. The most commonly implicated allergens are metals that are incorporated into dental appliances. Intraoral ACD to nonmetal allergens is even less frequently described. Cinnamic aldehyde is widely used as a flavoring agent in foods and dentifrices. However, intraoral ACD to cinnamon flavoring agents has only been sporadically reported. In these cases, a variety of sources have been implicated, including candy, chewing gum, mouthwash, lip sunscreen, cinnamon toast, volatile oils, and toothpaste. The clinical presentation of intraoral ACD reactions varies greatly, and as a result, clinicians often do not recognize the diagnosis. Furthermore, because patients are typically unable to provide a list of putative allergens, a high degree of clinical suspicion is required to make the correct diagnosis. We describe several patients with intraoral ACD caused by cinnamon and review the literature associated with this condition.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it