Contact Allergy to Corticosteroids in Patients Using Inhaled or Intranasal Corticosteroids for Allergic Rhinitis or Asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients using topically applied corticosteroids are at risk of developing allergic contact hypersensitivity. Objective: To assess prevalence of allergic contact hypersensitivity reactions to inhaled or intranasal corticosteroids. Methods: A prospective study of 30 adult patients using inhaled or intranasal corticosteroids for conditions such as allergic rhinitis was performed. We used epicutaneous patch testing to determine the prevalence of allergic contact hypersensitivity to corticosteroids and common additives (propylene glycol and benzalkonium chloride) in inhaled and nasal corticosteroid preparations in this population. Results: Of 30 patients, 4 (13%) had positive patch test results. 3 (10%) were allergic reactions and 1 (3%) was an irritant reaction. Half of the reactions were to a corticosteroid (budesonide) and half were to a common preservative in nasal preparations (benzalkonium chloride). Conclusion: This study supports other clinical evidence that contact dermatitis/mucositis from inhaled or intranasal corticosteroid products can occur. The corticosteroids or added agents such as preservatives can be causative and may result in allergic or irritant reactions, which can be relevant to clinical symptoms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".