Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The systemic toxicity of phthalates has been extensively reported. Although rarely sensitizing, phthalates have been implicated in promoting the development of both atopy and contact dermatitis in animal models. Dermal absorption of phthalates may contribute to overall chemical burden. Infants may be particularly susceptible to chemical exposures. Baby skin care products may be a significant source of phthalate exposure. OBJECTIVE: We measured the phthalate content of 30 skin care products intended for babies and children. METHODS: Nineteen leave-on and 11 wash-off baby skin care products were analyzed for 17 unique phthalates by an independent laboratory using standard gas chromatographic mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Of 30 products tested, four had phthalate levels above the reporting limit (0.1-0.5 ppm); of these, only one had levels above 1 ppm (44 ppm). There was no statistical significance of phthalate detection in leave-on versus wash-off products (p = .578). CONCLUSION: The majority (26 of 30) of the baby skin care products analyzed did not have detectable phthalate levels. Four products had detectable phthalate levels. In baby skin care products, levels of the 17 phthalates tested are low overall, but occasional products may contain higher phthalate levels. Monitoring products to ensure safety standards are met may be warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".