Cross-reactions among Parabens, para-Phenylenediamine, and Benzocaine: A Retrospective Analysis of Patch Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parabens are alkyl ester derivatives of para-hydroxybenzoic acid and are the most commonly used preservatives in the cosmetic industry. Cross-reactions with para-amino compounds, namely, benzocaine and para-phenylenediamine (PPD), have been reported but are thought to be extremely rare. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the rate of cross-reactivity between parabens, PPD, and benzocaine in a population of patients patch-tested in a hospital-based contact dermatitis clinic. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 4,368 patients consecutively patch-tested between July 1989 and June 2005. RESULTS: Our study demonstrated that the rate of cross-reactions to parabens in PPD- and benzocaine-positive patients combined is 2%. CONCLUSION: This cross-reaction rate is significant in the tested population but still falls within the previously reported rates of sensitivity to parabens in the general population (0 to 3.5%).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".