MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411732774 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljaf085.270

CD01 Contact allergy to alkyl glucosides: a multicentre audit in the UK and Ireland

2025· article· en· W4411732774 on OpenAlexaff
Livia Francine Soriano, Natalie Stone, David Orton, Catriona I. Wootton, Donna Thompson, P. Cousen, Tracey M. Finch, M.M.U. Chowdhury, G.A. Johnston, Tang Ngee Shim, Simon Dawe, S. H. Wakelin, Sharizan Abdul Ghaffar, Avad Mughal, Krisztina Scharrer, Sara Lupita O’Kelly, Faheem Latheef

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicContact Dermatitis and Allergies
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact allergyAuditAllergyMedicineAlkylContact dermatitisImmunologyChemistryOrganic chemistryBusinessAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Alkyl glucosides (AGs) are surfactants widely used in cosmetic and household products (Soriano LF, Bertram CG, Chowdhury MMU et al. Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis to decyl and lauryl glucoside in the UK and Ireland. Br J Dermatol 2021; 184: 571–3). This audit investigated the frequency of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to AGs in the UK and Ireland. Between December 2023 and December 2024, consecutive patients with suspected ACD were patch tested to decyl glucoside (DG), lauryl glucoside (LG) and cetearyl glucoside (CeG) in both petrolatum (pet.) and aqueous (aq.) preparations, and to coco glucoside (CoG) and glyceryl glucoside (GG) in aqueous solution in an extended baseline and/or cosmetic series. Eleven centres tested AGs in 2704 patients in an extended baseline series. Of these, 57 patients (2.1%) had a positive reaction to at least one AG. The mean age was 45 years, 73.7% of patients were female and 66.7% had a background of atopy. The most commonly affected sites were the face (72.1%), hands (43.9%), neck (21.1%), legs (17.5%) and torso (17.5%). Multiple sites were affected in 68.4%. Implicated products included shampoo, makeup, hand wash, hair dye, wipes and sunscreen. DG 5% pet. elicited a positive reaction in 36 patients (1.3%), with 50% concomitant positivity to DG 5% aq.; current relevance was identified in 50%. There were five irritant reactions. DG 5% aq. had a positive reaction in 19 patients (0.7%), with 57.9% concomitant positivity to DG 5% pet., current relevance in 57.9% and eight irritant reactions. LG 3% aq. had a positive reaction in 24 patients (0.9%), 46% concomitant positivity to LG 3% pet., current relevance in 46% and eight irritant reactions. LG 3% pet. had a positive reaction in 22 patients (0.8%), 50% concomitant positivity to LG 3% aq., current relevance in 55% and 15 irritant reactions. CeG 5% aq. had a positive reaction in 12 patients (0.4%), with 8.3% concomitant positivity to CeG 5% pet., current relevance in 50% and three irritant reactions. CeG 5% pet. had a positive reaction in four patients (0.1%), with 25% concomitant positivity to CeG 5% aq., current relevance identified in 25% and four irritant reactions. CoG 5% aq. had a positive reaction in 19 patients (0.7%), with current relevance in 73.7% and eight irritant reactions. GG 2% aq. had no positive reactions and five irritant reactions. In addition, six centres tested 1099 patients to AGs in an extended cosmetic series, identifying a further 14 (1.3%) patients with a positive reaction to at least one AG. AG sensitization is common, with frequent irritant reactions. Clinical relevance is unknown in many cases. Concomitant positivity between petrolatum and aqueous formulations is variable. Testing glucosides in both vehicles may prevent missed diagnoses, highlighting the need for further investigation into an optimal patch testing strategy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicContact Dermatitis and AllergiesFrench-language works237,207