Contact Dermatitis Associated With Skin Cleansers: Retrospective Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data 2000–2014
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited information regarding contact dermatitis (CD) associated with skin cleansers (SCs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of allergic patch test (APT) reactions and irritant CD (ICD) associated with SCs. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was performed using North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2000-2014. RESULTS: Of 32,945 tested patients, 1069 (3.24%) had either APT reaction or ICD associated with SCs. Of these, 692 (64.7%) had APT reaction only, 350 (32.7%) had ICD only, and 27 (2.5%) had both. Individuals with APT reaction and/or ICD were more likely to have occupationally related skin disease (relative risk [RR] = 3.8 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 3.3-4.5] for APT reaction and 10.0 [95% CI = 8.2-12.2] for ICD, respectively, P < 0.0001). As compared with those without APT reaction to SC, individuals with APT reaction had significantly higher frequencies of hand (RR = 2.4 [95% CI = 2.1-2.7]) and arm dermatitis (RR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.1-1.6], P ≤ 0.001). Irritant CD was strongly associated with hand dermatitis (RR = 6.2 [95% CI = 5.2-7.3], P < 0.0001). More than 50 allergens were associated with SCs including quaternium-15 (11.2%), cocamidopropyl betaine (9.5%), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (8.4%), coconut diethanolamide (7.9%), fragrance mix I (7.7%), Myroxylon pereirae (5.9%), 4-chloro-3,5-xylenol (5.8%), amidoamine (5.5%), and formaldehyde (4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Many allergens, especially preservatives and surfactants, were associated with SCs. Most cases involved the hands and were occupationally related.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".