Allergic Contact Dermatitis and Patch-Testing Education in US Dermatology Residencies in 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The state of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) education has not been formally examined since the original study done by High and Cruz (Am J Contact Dermat. 2003;14(4):195-199). OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study were to characterize the current state of ACD and patch-testing education in US dermatology residency programs and to determine if there has been any significant improvement over the past 8 years. METHOD: This was a survey of ACD education and patch-testing practices in US dermatology residency programs. RESULTS: Surveys were sent to program directors and chief residents at all 112 US dermatology residency programs. Of the 224 surveys sent out, 105 (46.88%) were returned. There were several statistically significant changes from the 2002 survey. More faculty members who are designated as ACD experts are now members of the American Contact Dermatitis Society. Fewer programs now routinely review contact dermatitis-specific journals. Residents are now more likely to receive didactic lectures on ACD. Program directors estimated graduating residents will now be less likely to perform the TRUE Test in practice, and although not statistically significant, program directors also estimated an increase in the number of residents who will use expanded tests. CONCLUSIONS: Although some areas of ACD education have improved over the past 8 years, opportunities to further improve remain.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".