Contact Dermatitis of the Feet: A Study of 53 Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact dermatitis of the feet is a common dermatosis that very often makes patients unable to perform daily activities. The differential diagnosis should be made with other dermatoses, such as tinea, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, dyshidrosis, and nummular eczema. It is clinically difficult to establish a true diagnosis of contact dermatitis, and the results of epicutaneous tests may not be definite. However, studies undertaken to identify the etiologic agent may lead to a cure for patients. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: The objectives of this study were (1) to verify the frequency of contact dermatitis of the feet among a group of patients seen at a public clinic, (2) to determine the type of contact dermatitis, and (3) to determine the most common sensitizers. We selected only patients with eczematous dermatitis from among 1,027 patients at the clinic, and they were patch tested with the Brazilian series. RESULTS: Of 1,027 patients who submitted to patch tests, 53 (5.2%) presented with dermatosis of the feet. Out of these 53 patients, 37 (70%) had at least one positive patch-test reaction, and the remaining 16 (30%) had negative results. CONCLUSION: The presence of dermatosis on the dorsal region of the foot in the majority of the patients with a positive test result was statistically significant (chi2 = 6.02; p < .05). The compounds that caused positive tests more often were rubber-vulcanizing agents, followed by metals and topical medications. The epicutaneous tests were found to be indispensable for the etiologic diagnosis of contact dermatitis of the feet.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".