The science behind wet wipes for infant skin: Ingredient review, safety, and efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the diapered area, the continuous exposure to excess moisture and irritants from urine and feces weakens the stratum corneum, making the skin more susceptible to irritation. The use of wet wipes for infants (baby wipes) is a common practice to clean skin after urine or a bowel movement, and this practice even extends to cleaning the hands and face, resulting in repeated daily use. Therefore, ensuring that baby wipes contain ingredients that are safe and mild on skin is important to help minimize skin irritation and discomfort. While disposable baby wipes have been shown to be effective and gentle at cleaning infant skin, even the skin of premature infants, there is growing public concern regarding their safety and tolerability. Not all products are made the same, as differences exist in manufacturing processes, ingredients, materials, safety, and quality testing. Therefore, it is important that healthcare professionals have accessible evidenced-based information on the safety and tolerability of common ingredients found in baby wipes to optimally educate their patients and families. Herein, we provide a review on best practices for ingredient selection, safety, and efficacy of baby wipes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".