Genital Contact Dermatitis: A Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: many topical products are used in the genital region. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) may develop from product use or due to treatment of an underlying dermatosis. OBJECTIVES: our goal was to identify the frequency of ACD and identify top allergens in the genital region. METHODS: data were analyzed for 1,238 patients tested between January 1990 and December 2006. Fifteen allergens caused reactions at rates greater than 1%. Thirteen anatomic regions were assessed. Statistical analyses were by chi-square test and Fisher exact test. Adjusted level of significance due to multiple testing was α = .002. RESULTS: of individuals with genital dermatitis (n = 37; aged 24-77 years, 48.6% female), 41% (15 of 37) had at least one positive patch-test result although only 30% (11 of 37) had a final diagnosis of relevant ACD. Mean age was 46 years for males and 41 years for females. The top five allergens were balsam of Peru (10.8%), fragrance mix I (8.1%), tolu balsam (8.1%), phenylmercuric acetate (8.1%), and neomycin (5.4%). Females were more often allergic (50%) compared to males (37%); 59.5% of patients had no positive reactions. CONCLUSION: genital dermatitis is rare; the minority tested positively for ACD. The top five allergens were present in toiletries and cosmetics used on genital skin. The top three allergens are fragrance related, underscoring the importance of using fragrance-free products on mucosal skin.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".