Baby-Wipe Dermatitis: Preservative-Induced Hand Eczema in Parents and Persons Using Moist Towelettes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hand eczema can have complex causative or aggravating influences, and the pattern, history, and patch test data are helpful in identifying sources and antigen substitution. Objective: We studied our patients with hand eczema associated with exposure to baby wipes for pattern and sensitivities. Methods: Patient records over a 10-year period containing key words were reviewed for relevance of exposure, patch test data, and outcome. Results: A total of 6 women and 3 men with hand eczema were found to be allergic to (preservatives found in) different brands of moist towelettes used in diaper hygiene. Many were allergic to fragrance materials as well. The eruptions were mostly worse on the thumb and 2 adjacent fingers, with which the item was held. Five of the 9 were parents of infants, although no infant had a problem. Only 1 patient suspected the source. All improved with avoidance, although most had multiple other contact allergies, including corticosteroids. Conclusions: Hand eczema in a grip-like pattern is good reason to inquire about baby wipes as a possible source, as most patients do not recognize that source even after undergoing patch tests.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".