MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016705508 · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000079

Adverse Reactions to Sunscreen Agents: Epidemiology, Responsible Irritants and Allergens, Clinical Characteristics, and Management

2014· review· en· W2016705508 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ashley R. Heurung, Srihari Raju, Erin M. Warshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSunburnDermatologySunscreening AgentsAllergic contact dermatitisSkin reactionDrug reactionSkin cancerUV filterAllergic reactionDrugAllergyPharmacologyCancerImmunologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sunscreen is a key component in the preventive measures recommended by dermatologists and public health campaigns aimed at reducing sunburn, early skin aging, and skin cancer. To maximize compliance, adverse reactions to sunscreens should be minimized. Although inactive ingredients cause many of these reactions, it is important for dermatologists to be aware of reactions to active ultraviolet filters. There are approximately 120 chemicals that can function as ultraviolet (UV) filters. This review focuses on the 36 most common filters in commercial and historical use. Of these, 16 are approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration. The benzophenones and dibenzoylmethanes are the most commonly implicated UV filters causing allergic and photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) reactions; benzophenone-3 is the leading allergen and photoallergen within this class. When clinically indicated, patch and photopatch testing should be performed to common UV filters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207