MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402207478 · doi:10.3205/dgkh000495

Medical associations and expert committees urge that ethanol be approved as a virucidal active substance for use in hand antiseptics under the European Biocidal Products Regulation, without a CMR classification

2024· article· en· W4402207478 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Axel Krämer, Didier Pittet, Martin Exner, Constanze Wendt

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEthanolPharmacologyChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Since 2007, the classification of ethanol under the Biocidal Products Regulation has paradoxically remained unresolved due to conflicting views among experts and authorities. Initially, there was a discussion about classifying ethanol as carcinogenic. The current proposal to extend its harmonized classification includes, among other things, categorizing it as reproductive toxicity category 2 ("suspected to have CMR potential for humans"; carcinogenic, mutagenic, reprotoxic). If ethanol were classified under reproductive toxicity category 2, it would mean that the only active ingredient in hand antiseptics effective against non-enveloped viruses would no longer be available. Scientific assessment of the safety of ethanol-based hand rubs EBHR: Available epidemiological studies do not confirm an increased risk for cancer from EBHR in exposed individuals, except under uncommon or unlikely routes or levels of exposure.The evidence for ethanol's reprotoxic effect originates from the consumption of alcoholic beverages by pregnant women, where ethanol uptake is incomparably higher. The amount of transdermal ethanol absorption during hand antisepsis is up to ten times lower than the oral intake of beverages containing hidden ethanol, such as apple juice, kefir, or non-alcoholic beer. Blood alcohol levels after using EBHR remain within the physiological range associated with food intake. Conclusion: There is no epidemiological evidence of toxicity for workers handling ethanol-containing products in industry or using EBHR in healthcare settings. Given that the classification of EBHR as reproductive toxicity category 2 is not supported by current scientific research and that no alternative biocidal active substance in hand rubs is effective against non-enveloped viruses, medical associations and expert committees from Europe, the USA, Canada, the Asia-Pacific region, and the World Society for Virology unequivocally recommend, with the highest priority, that EBHR be approved as an active substance for PT1 biocides and not be classified as a reproductive toxicant in category 2.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.679
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207