Photo Developer Allergic Contact Dermatitis in a Photographer Following Paraphenylenediamine Sensitization from a Temporary Henna Tattoo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Paraphenylenediamine (PPD) is a coloring agent and potent sensitizer commonly added to henna tattoos to darken tattoo color. Photographic developers contain compounds that cross-react with PPD. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from photo developers has been documented in the literature. OBJECTIVE: We describe the rare case of a photographer who presented with a 4-year history of recurrent ACD following exposure to photochemicals. History taking revealed that 10 years before presentation, he had received a temporary henna tattoo. METHODS: The patient was patch-tested with 4-methylaminophenol sulfate (Metol), the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) series, and select other allergens. RESULTS: Patch testing results revealed strong positive reactions to 4-methylaminophenol sulfate and PPD. CONCLUSION: This is the first report to our knowledge of ACD from a photo developer occurring as a consequence of previous sensitization to PPD from a temporary henna tattoo. Due to the potential for long-term sequelae, an awareness of the risks associated with henna tattoos is warranted.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".