Nutritional Supplements and Cosmetic Formulations: A Review of Emerging Allergens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Nutritional supplements and topical formulations are increasingly implicated in allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), yet their allergenic potential remains underrecognized due to inconsistent regulatory oversight, limited provider awareness, and the misconception that “natural” products are inherently safe. To identify emerging allergens in supplements and cosmetics, characterize associated ACD reactions, and highlight diagnostic and regulatory challenges. A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases was conducted to evaluate reports of ACD linked to dietary supplements and topical formulations. Key sensitizers include vitamin derivatives ( tocopherol, phytonadione, ascorbic acid ), herbal extracts ( Ginkgo biloba, turmeric, St. John’s Wort ), and antioxidants ( α-lipoic acid, resveratrol ). Documented cases range from localized dermatitis to systemic reactions. Patch testing confirms sensitization, with cross-reactivity and oxidation-related allergenicity frequently observed. Patch testing may not always reveal the sensitizing agent, especially if the allergen is a contaminant, an unlisted ingredient, or undergoes chemical transformation during oxidation or formulation. The rising prevalence of supplement- and cosmetic-induced ACD underscores the need for standardized patch testing, improved ingredient labeling, and enhanced regulatory oversight, including mandated reporting of adverse reactions, premarket safety testing for allergens, and standardized labeling of known sensitizers and botanical components.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".