Fragrance- and Botanical-Related Allergy and Associated Concomitant Reactions: A Retrospective Analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data 2007–2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: When fragrance- and botanical-related (F/BR) allergy is identified, concomitant reaction (CR) frequencies can help direct avoidance recommendations. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the CR rates for F/BR allergens. DESIGN: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group data 2007-2016 was conducted. Frequencies of demographics, positive reactions, strength of reactions, trends, and CR rates were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 5504 (22.7%) of 24,246 patients had F/BR allergic reactions. The F/BR-sensitive patients were more likely to be female, older than age 40 years, and White and have face, leg, or anal/genital dermatitis. Top allergens included fragrance mix I (FMI, 10.6%), Myroxylon pereirae (balsam of Peru [BOP], 8%), and fragrance mix II (FMII, 4.9%). There were increasing trends for FMI, FMII, cinnamic aldehyde, and Compositae mix and decreasing trends for BOP and propolis. When patients were positive to any F/BR allergen, they were likely to be positive to FMI, FMII, and BOP. Concomitant reactions were bidirectional between multiple fragrance allergens and propolis, colophony, and Compositae mix. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant reactions were identified between fragrances, between fragrances and BR allergens, and between BR allergens and fragrances. If CRs of greater than 10% suggest cross-reactivity, then all patients with fragrance sensitivity should avoid BR allergens and vice versa.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".