Consort Allergic Contact Dermatitis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Consort allergic contact dermatitis (CACD) develops following exposure to an allergen originating from another individual. The diagnosis is often not straightforward. We conducted a systematic review to characterize patient demographics, clinical features, consort types, responsible products, and associated allergens in CACD. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL Complete from inception to July 2020. In total, 183 articles describing 261 patients with CACD were included. Mean age was 40.9 years with female predominance (62.8%). The most common body sites involved were the face (48.6%), hand (30.4%), arm (20.9%), neck (17.8%), and genitals (11.5%). The most common consorts were partners/spouses (50.0%, of which 29.9% were related to sexual activity), children (19.4%), and healthcare providers (7.8%). Allergens were mainly encountered via direct contact with consorts (80.5% of cases). A caregiver relationship was involved in 27.6% of cases, and the consort's occupation in 14.6%. The most frequently implicated products were medications (35.6%), plants/botanicals (11.7%), and fragrances (8.7%). Patch testing identified 125 unique allergens in CACD. CACD can occur in relation to many individuals encountered throughout life. Caregivers may represent a high-risk group for developing CACD. Obtaining a holistic history encompassing social, sexual, and occupational factors can aid in the diagnosis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".