Contact Dermatitis Mimickers: A Tertiary Care Center's Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact dermatitis (CD) is very common but can be mimicked by numerous dermatologic conditions. Thus, a wide differential must be considered before a definitive diagnosis of CD is made to ensure the patient receives appropriate treatment and follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To describe conditions that can present similarly to contact dermatitis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients referred to the Occupational Disease Specialized Program at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto between 2009 and 2011 for CD investigations but with a final diagnosis other than CD. RESULTS: We report cases of 2 feet-1 hand syndrome, Dermatitis Herpetiformis, Sézary syndrome and two cases of Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris misdiagnosed as CD and referred for patch testing at our busy tertiary care centre. Failing to recognize these mimickers of CD resulted in a significant delay in diagnosis for the patients and resulting initiation of necessary intervention. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to consider numerous mimickers before making a diagnosis of CD to ensure optimal outcome for patients.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".