Allergic Contact Dermatitis Associated with Men’s Personal Care Products: A Review of Allergens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personal care product usage is becoming increasingly prevalent among men due to evolving attitudes surrounding appearance, aging, and masculinity. Given the specific characteristics of male skin compared with female skin and varying product use between males and females, the occurrence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) due to men's personal care products needs to be better characterized. The purpose of this review was to identify specific product types and ingredients causing ACD in males. PubMed search was conducted from conception to present day using keywords pertaining to male personal care product use. Case reports, case series, and case-control studies reporting a diagnosis of ACD due to a personal care product ingredient were analyzed. Products resulting in ACD included aftershave, cologne, deodorant, hair dye, hair gel, hair loss preparation, hand cleanser, lip balm, moisturizer, shampoo, and sunscreen. Although >90 allergens resulting in ACD were identified, the 5 most common allergens included para-phenylenediamine, minoxidil, musk ambrette, methylisothiazolinone, and cocamidopropyl betaine. Following this review, clinicians should be better able to recognize men's personal care products that commonly result in ACD, as well as specific allergens present across multiple product types. Doing so will lead to improved diagnosis and treatment of ACD due to personal care product usage in men and, in doing so, guide both clinical practice and future investigation in this area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".