Consumer Allergy to Oxidative Hair Coloring Products: Epidemiologic Data in the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxidative hair dyes have repeatedly come to the attention of the dermatologic community owing to concerns about contact dermatitis. A review of the scientific literature provides insight into the prevalence of p-phenylenediamine (PPD)-sensitized individuals and on the prevalence of hair dye dermatitis in various types of patient and nonpatient populations mainly from Europe and from the United States and Asia. Most of the results are obtained through patch testing with PPD. PPD is one of the main oxidation colorants; however, patch-test prevalence of PPD is not equivalent to prevalence of hair dye allergy. An analysis shows no clear increase in the frequency of positive patch-test reactions to PPD in eczema patients and in the general population. All the parameters through which the frequency of hair dye dermatitis resulting from exposure to PPD is evaluated have been stable in Europe, with a few exceptions that are discussed in the review. There is a statistically significant decrease (p < .0001) in the prevalence of positive patch-test reactions to PPD in North America (1970 to 2002). Data from studies in Asia are difficult to interpret. Pooled prevalence rates of positive patch-test reactions to PPD were calculated for the three continents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".