Allergic Contact Dermatitis from Dimethyl Fumarate after Contact with a Chinese Sofa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Dimethyl fumarate has been successfully used in the treatment of psoriasis in the past. Despite its clinical use, cutaneous contact with this molecule may cause contact dermatitis. Objective: We report a case in which skin exposure to a synthetic fabric sofa containing dimethyl fumarate made by a Chinese furniture manufacturer resulted in a severe, pruritic, papulovesicular, eczematous dermatitis to the sites of contact with the sofa. Methods: The patient was patch-tested with serial dilutions of dimethyl fumarate. Results: Patch testing results revealed strong positive reactions to dimethyl fumarate at different concentrations. Conclusion: Dimethyl fumarate is a potent contact sensitizer and is commonly found in sachets inside furniture and footwear boxes. Contexte: Le fumarate de diméthyle a été utilisé avec succès, dans le passé, dans le traitement du psoriasis. Malgré cet usage clinique, les contacts cutanés avec la molécule peuvent causer une dermatite de contact. Objectif: Nous faisons état ici d'un cas d'exposition de la peau à du fumarate de diméthyle présent dans le tissu synthétique d'un sofa fabriqué en Chine, qui a entraîné un eczéma grave, prurigineux, et papulovésiculaire aux sièges de contact avec le sofa. Méthode: Le patient a été soumis à des tests épicutanés, avec dilutions successives du fumarate de diméthyle. Résultats: Les résultats des tests épicutanés ont révélé une forte réaction positive au fumarate de diméthyle, à différentes concentrations. Conclusion: Le fumarate de diméthyle est un puissant sensibilisant de contact, qu'on trouve souvent dans les sachets placés dans les meubles et dans les boîtes à chaussures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".