Perianal Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perianal complaints are often consulted in dermatology clinics, and in many cases, a conclusive diagnosis is not easily made. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to study and identify the epidemiological, clinical, and contact allergy features of patients with perianal dermatitis who attended at a contact dermatitis unit in a tertiary hospital in Spain. METHODS: Adult patients with long-lasting (>4 weeks) perianal dermatitis were recruited during the past 10 years for investigation and follow-up. Every patient underwent a diagnostic workup consisting of dermatological exploration and patch tests with the standard and specific series, as well as the patients' own products. General surgical exploration was also performed in some patients. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four patients were included. The MOAHLFA index was as follows: 43.5, 0, 4.8, 11.3, 1.6, 8.1, and 75. The main final diagnoses were allergic contact dermatitis (32.3%), psoriasis (24.2%), irritant contact dermatitis (17.7%), and lichen simplex (neurodermatitis) (10%). Eighty-one patients (66.1%) showed 1 or more positive reactions, and in 52 patients (43%), positive reactions relevant to the present disease were found. CONCLUSIONS: Contact allergy in patients with long-lasting perianal complaints is frequent. It is mandatory for these patients to be referred to a dermatologist for an adequate evaluation and patch testing. Methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone seems as the most common allergen implicated in perianal 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".