MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403569160 · doi:10.1177/12034754241290824

Wipes or Water: A Traditional Approach to Preventing Diaper Dermatitis

2024· letter· en· W4403569160 on OpenAlexaff
Nabeel Ahmad, Saba Suleman, Dania Fayad, Fatemeh Jafarian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNeonatal skin health care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiaper DermatitisDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor, Newborns and infants possess a distinct skin structure, composition, and function compared to adults, characterized by a thinner epidermal layer, particularly the stratum corneum, and smaller corneocytes.1 This anatomical difference increases their susceptibility to transepidermal water loss and external irritants such as chemicals found in baby wipes and abrasive diaper materials.2 Diaper dermatitis (DD) is inflammation in diaper-covered areas primarily caused by prolonged moisture, friction, and irritants like ammonia and enzymes in stool.3 It disrupts skin pH, normal flora, and the skin barrier, commonly affecting infants aged 9 to 12 months and impacting up to a third of infants. 1 DD can lead to restlessness, poor feeding, sleep disturbances, frequent medical visits, and parental anxiety, highlighting the need for effective preventive strategies.4 Disposable wipes for diaper cleaning have become popular, moving from harsh chemical formulations to more advanced versions with milder ingredients.Despite improvements, these wipes still contain preservatives to prevent microbial growth.Recent studies have shown certain advantages of using wipes, including tolerability and gentleness; however, they have also highlighted a correlation between wipes with fewer ingredients and a reduced incidence of diaper rash, and scrutiny of specific components.2,5 Chronic exposure to irritants in wipes can compromise infants' skin barriers.Residual ingredients left on the skin, especially under occlusion, may be absorbed, posing risks.Chromatography research has detected various compounds in wipes, including allergens like fragrances, preservatives, phthalates, and musks.Despite claims of gentleness, these ingredients can be abrasive and allergenic, altering pH levels and potentially causing sensitivity.5 Even certain natural fragrances such as chamomile and aloe vera may not be hypoallergenic due to their alcohol or essential oil content.Methylisothiazolinone, a common preservative, and parabens in wipes have been associated, respectively, with contact allergies and endocrine disorders.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0090.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicNeonatal skin health careFrench-language works237,207