Patch Testing With Carmine 2.5% in Petrolatum by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2011–2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carmine is a natural red dye that may cause allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze patch test reactions to carmine (2.5% in petrolatum) and characterize carmine-positive patients. METHODS: This study conducted a retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group data compiled between 2011 and 2012. RESULTS: Of 4240 patients patch tested to carmine, 132 (3.1%) had reactions with a final interpretation of "allergic" (positive). Carmine-positive patients were significantly more likely to be female (77.7% vs 68.3%; P = 0.0237) and have a final primary diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis (74.8% vs 47.2%; P < 0.0001). As compared with carmine-negative patients, carmine-positive patients were significantly more likely to have involvement of all facial sites combined (48.1% vs 29.9%; P < 0.0001) and the lips (7.6% vs 3.6%; P = 0.0166). At final reading, most carmine reactions were weak (+; 64.9%). Approximately half (53.4%) were currently clinically relevant; identified sources were primarily personal care products (77.1%), especially makeup (31.4%) and lip products (8.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Weak patch test reactions to carmine should be interpreted with caution. Allergic contact dermatitis to carmine should be suspected in women with facial and/or lip dermatitis, especially those using carmine-containing cosmetics.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".