Current Quality-of-Life Tools Available for Use in Contact Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contact dermatitis is a common dermatologic condition that can cause significant impairment in patients' overall quality of life (QoL). This impact is separate and potentially more clinically relevant than one's disease "severity" in contact dermatitis and should be consistently addressed by dermatologists. Despite this, QoL tools specific to contact dermatitis are lacking, and there is little consistency in the literature regarding the tool used to evaluate clinical response to therapies. Measurements currently available to evaluate disease-related QoL in contact dermatitis fit into 1 of the following 3 general types: generic health-related QoL measures, dermatology-related QoL measures, or specific dermatologic disease-related QoL measures. This article reviews the strengths and weaknesses of existing QoL tools used in contact dermatitis including: Short Form Survey 36, Dermatology Life Quality Index, Skindex-29, Skindex-16, Dermatology-Specific Quality of Life, and Fragrance Quality of Life Index.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".