Validating a Quality-of-Life Instrument for Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contact dermatitis is a prevalent condition that has a significant impact on quality of life (QoL). Although many generic dermatological QoL instruments exist, none were developed by and for patients with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to create and validate a reliable QoL instrument specific for the ACD population. METHODS: We identified QoL items specific to ACD through a series of qualitative interviews with ACD patients and experts. We created a 17-question survey that queries the patient across the following 3 major domains: symptoms, functioning, and emotions. We used statistical methods to evaluate the reliability and validity of this tool. RESULTS: Ninety patients with relevant positive results on patch testing completed the novel ACD instrument and the Skindex-29. This instrument exhibited reliability and validity in individuals with ACD and was more sensitive than the generic tool Skindex-29. CONCLUSIONS: This novel instrument is the first tool developed specifically to assess the unique impacts of ACD on QoL. Providers can reliably use this index to assess the specific aspects of the disease most problematic for the ACD patient and use this information to more properly inform counseling and management.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".