Trends in the Prevalence of Methylchloroisothiazolinone/Methylisothiazolinone Contact Allergy in North America and Europe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The common use of isothiazolinones as preservatives is a global cause of allergic contact dermatitis. Differences in allowable concentrations of methylisothiazolinone (MI) exist in Europe, Canada, and the US. Objective: To compare the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to the methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) combination and MI alone in North America and Europe from 2009 to 2018. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group, European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) databases included data from patients presenting for patch testing at referral patch test clinics in North America and Europe. Exposures: Patch tests to MCI/MI and MI. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis to MCI/MI and MI. Results: From 2009 to 2018, participating sites in North America and Europe patch tested a total of 226 161 individuals to MCI/MI and 118 779 to MI. In Europe, positivity to MCI/MI peaked during 2013 and 2014 at 7.6% (ESSCA) and 5.4% (IVDK) before decreasing to 4.4% (ESSCA) and 3.2% (IVDK) during 2017 and 2018. Positive reactions to MI were 5.5% (ESSCA) and 3.4% (IVDK) during 2017 and 2018. In North America, the frequency of positivity to MCI/MI increased steadily through the study period, reaching 10.8% for MCI/MI during 2017 and 2018. Positive reactions to MI were 15.0% during 2017 and 2018. Conclusions and Relevance: The study results suggest that in contrast to the continued increase in North America, isothiazolinone allergy is decreasing in Europe. This trend may coincide with earlier and more stringent government regulation of MI in Europe.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".