Patch Testing Practices of American Contact Dermatitis Society Members
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patch testing is an important part of diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis although there is much variability in methodology among practitioners. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed members of the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) to quantify time spent with patients with contact dermatitis; to characterize patch testing practices, including the Thin-Layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous (T.R.U.E.) Test; and to assess utilization of the Contact Allergen Replacement Database (CARD). METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to all members of the ACDS. RESULTS: Our survey was sent to the 600 members of the ACDS; 100 members participated (a response rate of 16.6%). Respondents used patch testing trays that contained an average of 62 allergens; 68% of respondents used the North American Contact Dermatitis Group series, and only 9% used the T.R.U.E. Test. Respondents' biggest criticism of the T.R.U.E. Test was its low number of allergens, and 94% of respondents used CARD regularly. CONCLUSION: ACDS members used patch testing trays with many allergens. Despite the T.R.U.E. Test's popularity among general dermatologists and allergists, few ACDS members used it. Routine CARD usage should be encouraged.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".