Validating Responsiveness of a Quality-of-Life Instrument for Allergic Contact Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although many generic dermatological quality-of-life (QoL) instruments exist, none have been specifically designed for patients with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). In the preceding publication-Validating a Quality-of-Life Instrument for Allergic Contact Dermatitis-we developed and validated a QoL instrument specific to the ACD population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether this ACD-specific QoL instrument appropriately captures change in QoL after patch testing in ACD patients. METHODS: One hundred individuals completed the previously validated 17-item QoL survey plus 2 global questions and the Skindex-29 before patch testing. Two months after patch testing and allergen avoidance, the participants repeated the same questionnaires. We used statistical methods to evaluate the capacity of the ACD questionnaire to measure change in QoL in comparison with the Skindex-29. CONCLUSIONS: The novel ACD-specific questionnaire was more sensitive to change in QoL than the generic Skindex-29. Eleven of the original 17 items were found to capture change in QoL, and of the 3 domains (emotions, symptoms, functioning), the emotional aspect of the disease was most burdensome and responsive to change 2 months after patch testing. Providers can reliably use this index to assess changes in QoL over time.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".