Personal Care Product Use in Pregnancy and the Postpartum Period: Implications for Exposure Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concern regarding the potential for developmental health risks associated with certain chemicals (e.g., phthalates, antibacterials) used in personal care products is well documented; however, current exposure data for pregnant women are limited. The objective of this study was to describe the pattern of personal care product use in pregnancy and the post-partum period. Usage patterns of personal care products were collected at six different time points during pregnancy and once in the postpartum period for a cohort of 80 pregnant women in Ottawa, Canada. The pattern of use was then described and groups of personal care product groups commonly used together were identified using hierarchical cluster analysis. The results showed that product use varied by income and country of birth. General hygiene products were the most commonly used products and were consistently used over time while cosmetic product use declined with advancing pregnancy and post-delivery. Hand soaps and baby products were reported as used more frequently after birth. This study is the first to track personal care product use across pregnancy and into the postpartum period, and suggests that pregnant populations may be a unique group of personal care product users. This information will be useful for exposure assessments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".