The 2021 PhD Board-Certified Clinical Chemist Compensation Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Doctoral-level clinical chemists work in various settings including academia, healthcare systems, reference laboratories, and industry. Information regarding compensation and benefits for PhD board-certified clinical chemists is limited. The American Association for Clinical Chemistry's (AACC) Society for Young Clinical Laboratorians (SYCL) Core Committee completed a compensation survey in February 2021 and compared that to previous survey results. METHODS: The 2021 salary survey was made available to all doctoral-level AACC members working in the United States and Canada. Respondents provided information on type of degree and board certification, years of experience, employment sector, geographic location, and gender. The survey collected confidential self-reported data from 208 respondents, with 187 (90%) respondents residing in the United States. RESULTS: The 25th percentile, median and 75th percentile total compensation range for 113 PhDrespondents who are certified by the American Board of Clinical Chemistry (ABCC) and residing in the United States was $150 000 to $159 000, $180 000 to $189 000, and $230 000 to $239 000, respectively. Most of the respondents worked in either an academic, hospital, or healthcare system setting, with 47% of respondents working at academic medical centers. CONCLUSIONS: In this 2021 compensation survey, we continue to see an upward trend in compensation ranges for board certified PhD clinical chemists. This report is important in allowing individuals to actively advocate with prospective and current employers for equal and fair compensation as well as other benefits that impact career development and growth.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".