Contact Allergic Reactions of the Vulva: A 14-Year Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In women with vulval complaints, irritant contact dermatitis is more common than allergic contact dermatitis, but secondary sensitization has to be taken into consideration since these patients often use several topical medications. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this retrospective study were to establish the prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis in patients with vulval complaints and to verify how many patients with allergic contact dermatitis suffered from a previous pathology. METHODS: We reviewed patch- and prick-test results from 92 women. The women had all been administered the European Standard series, and most had also been tested for other allergens such as the ingredients of topical pharmaceutical products and cosmetics. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (38%) presented with one or more positive allergic reactions. For 15 of the patients, these reactions were considered to be relevant to their clinical condition and were most often due to contact dermatitis from topical pharmaceutical products. Three patients presented with positive and relevant contact urticaria syndrome from latex, and two patients presented with protein contact dermatitis from human seminal plasma. CONCLUSION: Patients with vulval dermatitis are at risk of developing contact sensitivities, particularly to topical pharmaceutical products; therefore, attention should be paid to this problem when such products are prescribed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".