Elucidating the Relationship Between Mycosis Fungoides and Contact Sensitization: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Background: Mycosis fungoides (MF), a type of cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL), presents diagnostic challenges due to its complex etiology. Previous studies suggest a link between MF and type IV hypersensitivity, particularly allergic contact dermatitis (CD), but conclusive evidence is lacking. Objective: To investigate the relationship between MF and contact sensitization, focusing on positive patch test (PPT) results in a controlled, extensive study. Methods: A retrospective case–control study comparing 84 MF patients with 168 control patients carefully matched for demographics and clinical parameters. All participants underwent patch testing at Sourasky Medical Center Dermatology Clinic. Hypersensitivity reactions were analyzed to explore their association with MF. Results: Our study, the largest of its kind, found a statistically significant difference in PPT reactions between the 2 groups ( P < 0.001). MF patients had a markedly lower prevalence of positive reactions compared with the control group. Fragrance mix emerged as a common allergen in MF patients, contrasting with methylchloroisothiazolinone–methylisothiazolinone in the control group. Conclusions: This study shows a lower prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions in MF patients and identifies fragrance mix as a prevalent allergen. These findings suggest reevaluating the role of contact sensitization in MF pathophysiology and underscore the need for further research on diagnostic markers and therapeutic targets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".