Potential Allergens in Disposable Diaper Wipes, Topical Diaper Preparations, and Disposable Diapers: Under-recognized Etiology of Pediatric Perineal Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis in young children may be an under-recognized cause of perineal dermatitis. The diapered infant skin is uniquely susceptible to allergic contact dermatitis because of more permeable neonatal skin, a moist environment, frequent contact with irritants and resultant skin barrier breakdown, and exposure to topical products such as diaper wipes, diaper preparations, and disposable diapers. To our knowledge, potential allergens in these products have not been thoroughly catalogued or studied. OBJECTIVE: We explore and review potential allergenic ingredients in diaper wipes, topical diaper preparations, and disposable diapers. METHOD: We analyzed 63 diaper wipes, 41 topical diaper preparations, and the 3 top selling diaper brands available from two of the largest retailers in the United States. Each potential allergen is discussed, and epidemiologic studies of rates of sensitization to potential allergens in children are also reported. CONCLUSIONS: Botanical extracts, including members of the Compositae family, were the most commonly represented potential allergen in both diaper wipes and topical preparations. Other potential allergens identified with high frequency include α-tocopherol, fragrances, propylene glycol, parabens, iodopropynyl butylcarbamate, and lanolin. Frequent culprits such as formaldehyde releasers and methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone were not prevalent in our analyzed 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".