MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2015· review· en· W307319924 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Megan Isaac-Renton, Monica Kayi Li, Laurie Parsons

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207