Poppers Dermatitis®: A Systematic Review on a Unique Form of Contact Dermatitis® in the MSM Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: There are certain demographic characteristics that may serve as risk factors for exposure to a contact allergen. Volatile alkyl nitrites, colloquially known as “poppers,” are commonly inhaled by men who have sex with men (MSM) for their psychoactive and muscle-relaxing effects. They have been reported to cause either allergic contact Dermatitis® (ACD) or irritant contact Dermatitis® (ICD), termed “poppers Dermatitis®.” We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to understand the patient population, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and clinical course of poppers Dermatitis®. Our search returned 13 articles detailing 18 patients total. Most patient cases were male ( n = 13/15; 87%), of whom 5 were MSM. The reports on the remaining 8 men did not disclose their sexual behaviors. The chemicals deemed responsible for adverse cutaneous side effects included amyl nitrite (6/18; 33%), butyl nitrite (3/18; 167%), isobutyl nitrite (2/18; 11%), and an unspecified alkyl nitrite (7/18, 39%). The most common diagnosis was ICD (10/18; 56%). Only 3 patients underwent alkyl nitrite patch testing, with 2 testing positive for ACD. The most commonly involved anatomic sites were perinasal (13/18; 72%) and perioral regions (10/18; 56%). Rash morphology has been described as yellow crusting, impetigo-like, eczematous, vesicular, edematous, and erythematous. Ulceration can occur with direct skin contact to concentrated nitrite solution. Poppers Dermatitis® was often self-limited with complete resolution. Dermatologists should consider poppers Dermatitis® in those presenting with a characteristic midfacial rash, especially in MSM.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".