MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3132060322 · doi:10.1007/s43630-021-00013-1

Sunscreens and their usefulness: have we made any progress in the last two decades?

2021· article· en· W3132060322 on OpenAlexaff
Nick Serpone

Bibliographic record

VenuePhotochemical & Photobiological Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsHôpital Saint-Luc
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSun protection factorSun protectionUltraviolet radiationSkin cancerDermatologyPhotoagingNanotechnologyMedicineChemistryMaterials scienceCancerRadiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sunscreens have now been around for decades to mitigate the Sun’s damaging ultraviolet (UV) radiation which, although essential for the existence of life, is a recognized prime carcinogen. Accordingly, have suncreams achieved their intended purposes towards protection against sunburns, skin photo-ageing and the like? Most importantly, however, have they provided the expected protection against skin cancers that current sunscreen products claim to do? In the last two decades, there have been tens, if not hundreds of studies on sunscreens with respect to skin protection against UVB (280‒320 nm)—traditionally sunscreens with rather low sun protection factors (SPF) were intended to protect against this type of radiation—and UVA (320‒400 nm) radiation; a distinction between SPF and UVA protection factor (UVA-PF) is made. Many of the studies of the last two decades have focused on protection against the more skin-penetrating UVA radiation. This non-exhaustive article reviews some of the important facets of what is currently known about sunscreens with regard (i) to the physical UV filters titanium dioxide (TiO2) and zinc oxide (ZnO) and the mostly photo-unstable chemical UVB/UVA filters (e.g., octinoxate (OMC) and avobenzone (AVO), among others), (ii) to novel chemical sunscreen agents, (iii) to means that minimize the breakdown of chemical filters and improve their stability when exposed to UV sunlight, (iv) to SPF factors, and (v) to a short discussion on non-melanoma skin cancers and melanoma. Importantly, throughout the article we allude to the safety aspects of sunscreens and at the end ask the question: do active ingredients in sunscreen products pose a risk to human health, and what else can be done to enhance protection? Graphic abstract Significant loss of skin protection from two well-known commercial suncreams when exposed to simulated UV sunlight. Cream I: titanium dioxide, ethylhexyl triazone, avobenzone, and octinoxate; Cream II: octyl salicylate, oxybenzone, avobenzone, and octinoxate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations91
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhotochemical & Photobiological SciencesSame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207