True Photoallergy to Sunscreens Is Rare Despite Popular Belief
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rising use of sunscreen products has led to increased reporting of adverse reactions to sunscreens. OBJECTIVE: To investigate possible photoallergic reactions in patients who identified themselves as "being allergic" to sunscreens. METHODS: Patients filled out questionnaires about types of sunscreens they used and timing of their "allergic" reactions. Next, they consented to be photopatch-tested with active sunscreen ingredients, including the new sunscreen Anthelios SX (containing Mexoryl SX) and the new ultraviolet filters Tinosorb M and Tinosorb S. Standard allergen patch testing was also done. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients self-reported "sunscreen allergy." Photopatch testing is difficult for patients; hence, only 11 agreed to proceed with the testing. Eight patients had negative patch testing results. One patient reacted to benzophenone-2. Another had a prior reaction to titanium dioxide and titanium oxalate but did not react to the silicone-coated titanium in our study. Yet another patient had relevant photopatch reactions to benzophenone-3 and ethylhexyl dimethyl para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA). None reacted to the Tinosorbs or Anthelios SX. Few positive reactions to the standard allergens were not relevant. CONCLUSION: Although small, this study parallels prior studies in concluding that true delayed type IV hypersensitivity (allergic contact dermatitis and photoallergy) to sunscreens is more infrequent than patients tend to believe.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".