Making Contact for Contact Dermatitis: A Survey of the Membership of the American Contact Dermatitis Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS) is the principal organization representing the subspecialty of contact dermatitis in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterize ACDS members with respect to demographic characteristics, patch-test practices, and sentiments regarding the Society and its journal Dermatitis. METHODS: We conducted cross-sectional postal and online surveys of ACDS members. RESULTS: More than a third of ACDS members responded to the survey, 92% of whom practice dermatology, and most of whom are community practitioners. Responders manage patients with allergic and irritant dermatitis at a similar frequency. On average, they patch test 4 patients per week using 66 allergens per patient, which often include customized trays. Almost half of these practitioners learned patch testing from their residency programs. Most of the responders read and value the Society journal, value the Contact Allergen Management Program database, and attend society meetings. CONCLUSIONS: The ACDS is comprised overwhelmingly of dermatologists who are primarily community-based, young relative to the start of their practices, and use the Society's resources for continuing education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".