Allergic Contact Dermatitis Associated with Religious Practices: Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) may occur secondary to devotional practices in various religions. A systematic review of PubMed was conducted from inception of database to September 9, 2022. Key terms were "contact dermatitis" or "devotional dermatosis" in association with major world religions including "Christianity," "Islam," "Hinduism," "Buddhism," "Sikhism," and "Judaism." Inclusion criteria were determined by presence of a religious practice and associated ACD. Articles referencing other cutaneous reactions such as chemical leukoderma were excluded. In total, 36 of 102 unique articles identified met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two articles referenced Hinduism, 8 referenced Judaism, 5 referenced Islam, 3 referenced Christianity, and 1 article each mentioned Buddhism and Sikhism. Four articles referenced multiple religions. Para-phenylenediamine was the most common contact allergen overall and is found in blackening ingredients mixed with henna for temporary tattoos. Henna tattooing is a cultural practice associated with Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. Nine unique contact allergens associated with religious practices were identified. Increasing awareness of religious practices that cause ACD will facilitate culturally competent dermatological care.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".