Eyelid Dermatitis Caused by Metals in Cosmetic Products: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
47%).Five products claimed to have Sun Protection Factor components and contained homosalate, octocrylene, avobenzone, and octisalate.Twenty-two products (10%) had "fragrance-free" on the labeling, however, only 17 were truly fragrance-free upon ingredient review, including Drunk Elephant D-Bronzi Anti-Pollution Sunshine Drops, Bondi Sands 1 Hour Express Fragrance Free Self-Tanning Face Mist, and Bondi Sands 1 Hour Express Self Tanning Foam Fragrance Free.Compared with a similar report in 2021, 1 we found products in 2023 are less likely to be made with fragrances (73% vs 86%, P value 0.30).We noted a nonsignificant trend of decreased use of additives such as decyl glucoside (14% vs 6%, P value 0.20), and cocamidopropyl betaine (19% vs 9.5%, P value 0.32).There are several limitations of this study.First, we identified products from two major retailers, but additional products sold at other stores may have different product formulations with different allergenic potential.Second, we reviewed the ingredients listed on the Target or Ulta websites; we did not review the ingredients on the physical tanning product.As such, there may be a discrepancy in product formulation.Allergic contact dermatitis to self-tanners has been reported in the literature.Most cases are allergies to DHA, the active ingredient in most self-tanning products.[2][3][4] The inactive ingredient, methylisothiazolinone, was implicated in one case, but it was in a spray tan, using a different delivery system than selftanning products.5 Beyond these reported reactions, patch testing physicians should be aware a majority of these products contain fragrance, and may contain additional allergens that are relevant in patients with confirmed allergic contact dermatitis.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".