Contact Dermatitis Caused by Preservatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preservatives are biocidal chemicals added to food, cosmetics, and industrial products to prevent the growth of microorganisms. They are usually nontoxic and inexpensive and have a long shelf life. Unfortunately, they commonly cause contact dermatitis. This article reviews the most important classes of preservatives physicians are most likely to encounter in their daily practice, specifically isothiazolinones, formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasers, iodopropynyl butylcarbamate, methyldibromoglutaronitrile, and parabens. For each preservative mentioned, the prevalence of sensitization, clinical presentation of contact dermatitis, patch testing concentrations, cross reactions, and related legislation will be discussed. Mandatory labeling of preservatives is required in some countries, but not required in others. Until policies are made, physicians and patients must be proactive in identifying potential sensitizers and removing their use. We hope that this article will serve as a guide for policy makers in creating legislation and future regulations on the use and concentration of certain preservatives in cosmetics and industrial products.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".