American Contact Dermatitis Society Contact Allergy Management Program: An Epidemiologic Tool to Quantify Ingredient Usage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The usage prevalence of ingredients in topical products is important to dermatologists and industry. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of methylisothiazolinone (MI) in various types of consumer products METHODS: The Contact Allergy Management Program (CAMP) database was mapped and sorted in spreadsheet format to determine the prevalence of MI in various types of consumer products. RESULTS: Methylisothiazolinone was found in 13.2% of 4660 total products in CAMP. High usage of MI was seen in dishwashing products (64%), shampoos (53%), bathroom/kitchen/all-purpose cleaners (47%), hair conditioners (45%), hair dyes (43%), laundry additives/fresheners/softeners (30%), soaps/cleansers (29%), and surface cleaners/disinfectants (27%). Of the products containing MI, MI alone (without methylchloroisothiazolinone) was most common in makeup products (100%), cleaning/dish/laundry products (>99%), moisturizers (82%), shaving products (78%), sunscreens (71%), and antiaging products (67%). CONCLUSIONS: The American Contact Dermatitis Society's CAMP is a valuable tool to collect epidemiologic data on the incidence of specific ingredient usage in various types of topical 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".