Methylisothiazolinone Testing at 2000 ppm: A Prevalent Sensitizer for Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and methylisothiazolinone (MI) have been identified as potent allergens. The optimal MI concentration for patch testing for reaction to these agents has not yet been identified, but it has been suggested that testing MI at 2000 ppm may reduce false-negative reactions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report allergic reactions to MI and MCI/MI detected in a community dermatology practice setting in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: The patch test records of patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis seen between October 2007 and June 2014 were reviewed. We compared positive patch testing before and after December 2011 when a higher MI concentration was used (2000 ppm aqueous) in addition to the baseline series MCI/MI at 100 ppm. RESULTS: A total of 794 patient records were reviewed. There were 38 true-positive reactions to MI or MCI/MI. Of these 38 patients, 26 (68%) were female. We detected an overall increase in the rate of positive patch testing to MCI/MI, MI alone, or both from 3.13% to 7.45% when MI concentration was introduced at 2000 ppm aqueous. Occupational differences existed between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of MI at 2000 ppm to our screening series effectively increased the detection of MI-induced allergic contact dermatitis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".