Patch Testing to Carvone: North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2009 to 2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Carvone, a flavoring agent, may cause allergic contact dermatitis. This study summarizes patch test reactions to carvone in patients tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 2009 to 2018. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of patients positive to carvone (5% petrolatum). Demographics were compared with those of patients who were negative. Other analyses included reaction strength, clinical relevance, coreactivity with other fragrance/flavor allergens, and exposure sources. RESULTS: Of 24,124 patients tested to carvone, 188 (0.78%) were positive. As compared with carvone-negative patients, carvone-positive patients were significantly more likely older than 40 years (P = 0.0284). Women (76.1%) and/or facial involvement (33.0%) were common in the carvone-positive group but not statistically different from carvone-negative patients; 73.3% (n = 138) of the reactions were currently relevant. Relevant sources were personal care products (46.3%, n = 87) and food (14.3%, n = 27). Coreactivity with other fragrance/flavor markers was present in 60.6% of carvone-positive patients, most commonly fragrance mix I (34.6%), balsam of Peru (24.5%), and cinnamic aldehyde (15.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Ten-year prevalence of carvone sensitivity was 0.78%. Most carvone-positive patients were female, were older than 40 years, and/or had facial dermatitis. Personal care products were the most common source. Two-fifths of carvone reactions would have been missed by relying on other fragrance/flavoring allergens.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".