Contact Dermatitis from Gum Mastic ( <i>Pistacia lentiscus</i> ) and Gum Storax ( <i>Liquidambar styraciflua</i> ) in Mastisol-Allergic Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mastisol Liquid Adhesive is widely used on the skin, especially after surgical procedures. It contains gum mastic, gum storax, methyl salicylate, and ethanol. OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were to review our experience patch testing patients allergic to Mastisol and to assess coreacting substances. METHODS: We identified 18 patients who were allergic to Mastisol. Most of these had a history of postoperative or cardiac electrode dermatitis and underwent patch testing with multiple surgically related substances, including ingredients of Mastisol, compound tincture of benzoin, and fragrance-related ingredients and botanicals. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Among Mastisol-allergic patients, 13 (72%) of 18 were allergic to gum mastic, whereas 7 (44%) of 16 were allergic to gum storax. There was frequent coreactivity with various fragrance-related materials, including Majantol, Styrax benzoin, Myroxylon balsamum, Myroxylon pereirae, propolis, and others. Two gum mastic-allergic patients had positive patch tests with hydroperoxides of linalool and several other linalool-containing essential oils. As gum mastic contains linalool, it may explain some gum mastic reactions. Among patients without a history of postoperative contact dermatitis, 1 (0.4%) of 250 was patch test positive for gum mastic. This patient had allergic contact dermatitis from fragrances, so the gum mastic reaction was likely a true-positive relevant reaction.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".