MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W37479970 · doi:10.2310/6620.2011.00006v

Phthalates in Baby Skin Care Products

2011· article· en· W37479970 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Heather P. Lampel, Sharon E. Jacob

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEffects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhthalateMedicineDibutyl phthalateSkin careToxicologyEnvironmental healthDermatologyChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicEffects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicalsFrench-language works237,207