Potential Allergens in Feminine Hygiene Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Objectives: Genital allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) can profoundly affect quality of life. The role of different chemical compounds used in maxi pads and pantiliners as potential allergens remains underexplored. This study aims to investigate potential allergens present in these products. Methods: A search for pantiliners and maxi pads was conducted on websites of common drug stores, and compounds were identified through online listings, packaging, or manufacturer contact. Compounds were grouped based on chemical composition, structural similarities, or association with compound families using Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers and synonyms from De Groot’s Patch Testing, 4th edition. Results: From August 2021 to December 2022, 59 pantiliners and 111 maxi pads were analyzed, identifying 139 unique compounds. On average, pantiliners contained 8.4 compounds, and maxi pads 11. Common compound groups included wood pulp and cellulose materials (100%), polyolefins (100%), adhesives (88.2%), metallic pigments (80.6%), polyethylene glycol (PEG) (72.3%), and unspecified pigments (61.7%). Organic pigments and azo dyes, surfactants, fatty acid diester sulfates, higher alkanes, and synthetic fibers were found in over 25% of products. Antioxidants, solvents, fatty alcohol PEG ether compounds, fragrances, polysiloxanes, salts, and botanical extracts were also common ingredients occurring in over 10% of products. Only 11 products contained no known allergens. Conclusions: Pantiliners and maxi pads often contain compounds previously linked to genital ACD. Only California, New York, and Nevada require full ingredient disclosure, suggesting many products lack comprehensive ingredient labeling.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".