Characterization of Residual Facial Dermatitis during Dupilumab Therapy: A Retrospective Chart Review to Delineate the Potential Role of Expanded Series Patch Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the incidence of RFDD in patients receiving dupilumab and the rate of resolution of RFDD after expanded series patch testing (ESPT) and allergen avoidance. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of 80 patients with atopic dermatitis who were evaluated for RFDD after treatment with dupilumab. Expanded series patch testing findings and response to allergen avoidance were assessed in the subset of patients with RFDD who subsequently underwent ESPT while continuing to receive dupilumab. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients (61.3%) experienced facial dermatitis before initiating dupilumab. Thirty-five patients (43.8%) experienced RFDD after starting dupilumab. Of the 14 patients with RFDD who received ESPT, 92.9% had 1 or more relevant positive patch test results, with 50% of such patients being mostly to completely clear of facial dermatitis after allergen avoidance. Importantly, 50.6% of the positive reactions to allergens were not included on the North American Contact Dermatitis Group Core 80. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with RFDD benefit from patch testing and subsequent allergen avoidance. Expanded series patch testing should be offered to patients who experience RFDD after beginning dupilumab therapy to ensure that such patients have eliminated any exogenous component of their dermatitis, such as concomitant allergic contact dermatitis.
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) | 0.001 | 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".