The Use of Diphenylcyclopropenone in the Treatment of Recalcitrant Warts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The treatment of recalcitrant palmoplantar and periungual warts using topical immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone (DPC) was reviewed retrospectively over a seven-year period. METHODS: Two hundred eleven patients were sensitized during this time. The patients consisted of 90 males and 121 females and were between 5 and 78 years old. Twenty-three patients were lost to followup. Of the remaining, 4 were undergoing treatment at the time of evaluation, 1 patient failed sensitization, and 1 patient became pregnant. Four discontinued because of side effects, 3 because of financial reasons, and 18 patients discontinued treatment prior to completing the minimum required applications (defined as 6), producing a dropout rate of 12% (25/211). Three patients had additional treatment during the course of DPC and were not included in the study. The remaining 154 patients were classified as nonresponders or responders. RESULTS: The responders consisted of 135 individuals (87.7%) that had complete clearance of warts. Reported adverse effects were local and included with pruritus (15.6%), with blistering (7.1%), and with eczematous reactions (14.2%). The majority of the patients tolerated the treatment very well. One patient developed local impetigo. Patients had an average of 5 treatments over a 6-month period. CONCLUSIONS: Topical immunotherapy using DPC is an effective treatment option for recalcitrant warts. It should be considered as first-line treatment for warts based on its high response rate, absence of scarring, and painless application.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".