A Review on Common Ingredients of Periocular Cosmetics and Their Hazards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pervasive exposure of the general public to chemicals found in cosmetic products underlines the importance of maintaining stringent safety evaluations of cosmetic ingredients. Cosmetics products are composed of many raw ingredient materials including fragrances, colors, thickeners, surfactants, foam agents, minerals, and preservatives. Whether the make-up substances are chemical, synthetic or natural resource, they may be a problem for human dermal skin. The eyelid skin is one of the thinnest skins in the body, emphasizing the dangers of percutaneous absorption of irritants and allergens, with human eye areas on the face being extremely sensitive. Due to the sensitive nature of the human eyelid skin and tear film, great consideration must be taken when determining the safety of chemicals used to formulate cosmetics applied in the periorbital region. Among the cosmetic products commonly used, mascara, eyeliner, and eyelash glue are designed to be applied on the rims of the eyelid. The close proximity that these products may be applied daily to the ocular surface brings about the concern of chemical safety and ocular health. In this review, selected chemicals commonly found in the mascara, eyeliner and eyelash glue, and their potential hazards to the skin of ocular surface were specifically evaluated using available data.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".