Bibliographic record
Abstract
in 2013. It provides brief general information on propolis and a full update of the literature published between March 2013 and May 2025 on contact allergy to propolis, including results of testing in consecutive patients, data on testing in groups of selected patients, case reports, and case series. In addition, coreactivity to fragrances, fragrance-markers, and other compounds is presented and assessed, recent analyses of the components of the propolis materials used for patch testing are detailed, the allergens in propolis are briefly discussed, and data on the frequency of propolis used in cosmetics are provided. Special attention is paid to the sudden appearance of Brazilian propolis (Allergeaze) as patch test allergen, which caught us (and many others) by surprise. We try to elucidate the nature of positive patch tests to this material (allergic, false-positive, both?) and find an explanation for the extremely large number of positive reactions seen in various studies. We argue that propolis is used in few cosmetics and that these products are an infrequent cause of sensitization and allergic contact dermatitis. Rather, the majority may represent cross- or pseudo-cross-reactions in patients previously sensitized to fragrances. It is imperative that in the publication of all studies in which contact allergy to propolis was investigated, the source of propolis test material is specified: Chemotechnique (Chinese propolis) or Allergeaze (propolis = Chinese propolis; propolis [B] = Brazilian propolis).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".