Henna tattoos for children: a potential source of para-phenylenediamine and thiuram sensitization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 9‐year‐old girl with no past history of atopy had a henna tattoo applied to her back while on holiday in Greece (Fig. 1). Within 48 h, she developed an acute allergic contact dermatitis reaction with erythema, oedema and vesiculation on the tattoo site (Fig. 2). Patch‐testing showed positive reactions to para‐phenylenediamine (PPD) (+++), thiuram (++), colophony (++), benzocaine (+) and dye mix (++). Modern henna tattooing is accelerated by the addition of PPD which serves to darken the tattoo and allows greater precision to the design. Another modernization of the technique of henna tattooing is the use of stick‐on rubber stencils that can be bought commercially and reused to apply designs more easily. Children who are obtaining henna tattoos are likely not only to be sensitized to PPD in the henna paste, but also to be exposing themselves to risk of sensitization to thiuram or rubber chemicals as well as colophony.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".