MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284966999 · doi:10.1111/cod.14184

Sodium stearoyl glutamate: Another amino acid alkyl amide sensitizer in cosmetics

2022· article· en· W4284966999 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. Pralong, Ella Dendooven, Olivier Aerts

Bibliographic record

VenueContact Dermatitis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLotionSodium GlutamateAllergic contact dermatitisMedicineDermatologyCosmeticsAllergySodiumChemistryPharmacologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recently, several cases of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) have been reported due to amino acid alkyl amides (AAAAs) in cosmetics.1, 2 We here report a first case of ACD from sodium stearoyl glutamate (CAS no. 38517-23-6), an AAAA derived from glutamic acid/glutamate, used for its conditioning, cleansing and emulsifying properties. An otherwise healthy atopic 40-year-old female nurse was referred because of two episodes of acute ACD from two different cosmetic products. The first episode occurred 1 day following the application of a body lotion (Nuit polaire lait corps hydratant aux algues boréales; laboratoires Polaar, Paris, France) and the dermatitis was localized at the application sites of the body lotion (i.e., on the face, trunk and upper and lower limbs). The reaction had been so severe that treatment with both systemic and topical corticosteroids had been necessary. Three months later, 1 day following the application of an after-sun (Nuxe Sun, Boulogne-Billancourt, France) a similarly severe ACD occurred over the décolleté and upper limbs. Six months later, patch tests were performed, according to ESCD guidelines,3 with the European baseline series, a cosmetic series, and both creams (tested semi-open and ‘as is’ on patch). All test preparations were mounted on Finn chambers (SmartPractice, Calgary, Canada) and occluded for 2 days. Readings on day (D)3 and D4 showed ++ reactions only to the two cosmetic products (semi-open and patch tests). The ingredients common to both products were: glycerine, sodium stearoyl glutamate, linalool and geraniol. Three months later, following contact with the manufacturers, we received the different ingredients, albeit only from the after-sun, which were tested as above, and revealed positive reactions (D3, D4) to sodium stearoyl glutamate (1% aq.) (++), and also to the related AAAA capryloyl glycine (1% aq.) (+), the latter also being present in the after-sun (Figure 1). In recent years, cases of ACD have been reported to different AAAAs, derivatives of glycine, tyrosine and sarcosinate, in particular (for an overview, see Reference 1). Although initially these amino acid derivatives were considered safe for use in cosmetics,2 it has become clear that these components do possess skin sensitizing properties, sometimes leading to severe ACD, for example, characterized by the occurrence of pronounced facial edema.2, 4 Also in the current case, the skin reaction was so severe that systemic corticosteroids had been necessary to alleviate the patient's condition. Recently published cases of ACD from AAAAs concerned oleoyl tyrosine,1, 4 isopropyl lauroyl sarcosinate5 and capryloyl glycine, the latter also potentially present in hydrating creams used by atopic dermatitis patients.6, 7 Because in our patient both episodes of ACD occurred quite rapidly, that is, within 1 day after using both creams, she had likely been previously sensitized to these substances, or to one of them, as their similar chemical structure might also allow cross-reactivity (Figure 2). Co-reactivity, from concomitant exposure, is an alternative explanation for the second episode, as both sodium stearoyl glutamate and capryloyl glycine were present in the same culprit product (i.e., after-sun). In conclusion, we reported a first case of ACD from sodium stearoyl glutamate, adding to the evidence that AAAAs are indeed an emerging class of cosmetic sensitizers. Olivier Aerts is investigator, consultant and/or speaker for Leo Pharma and L'Oréal/La Roche Posay. Ella Dendooven and Pauline Pralong have no conflicts to declare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContact DermatitisSame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207