Contact Dermatitis Education in Dermatology Residency Programs: Can (Will) the American Contact Dermatitis Society Be a Force for Improvement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Contact dermatitis accounts for a considerable portion of outpatient clinic visits to dermatologists. The state of education in contact dermatitis at the level of dermatology residency training in the United States has not been examined. Objective: To assess the state of education in contact dermatitis in dermatology residency programs in the United States. Method: Cross-sectional survey of directors and chief residents of 105 dermatology training programs accredited by the American College of Graduate Medical Education. Results: Seventy-seven percent of directors and 74% of chief residents responded to the survey. In general, both sets of respondents gave concordant responses although responses from directors were more positive. With respect to didactic education, the vast majority of programs (> 73%) held lecture conferences on contact dermatitis. Less than one-third included contact dermatitis-focused journals in journal club conferences. A bare majority of programs (57% of directors, 53% of chief residents) identified a faculty expert in contact dermatitis, with almost all experts conducting patch-test clinics and providing lectures on contact dermatitis. Seventy-five percent of experts were members of the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS). Although residents in most programs (> 78%) performed patch tests to diagnose contact dermatitis, there were 14 programs in which none of their graduates performed such tests. Moreover, only 27% of programs had rotations dedicated to contact dermatitis and/or patch testing. Finally, directors and chief residents predicted that most graduates will incorporate the TRUE Test and not the more extensive or customized patch tests in their practices. Conclusions: Several opportunities for improving contact dermatitis education in residency programs were identified, including recruitment or development of more faculty experts in contact dermatitis, creation of rotations dedicated to contact dermatitis, and greater inclusion of contact dermatitis-focused journals in journal club conferences. As the principal interest group for contact dermatitis in the United States, the ACDS is the logical organization to spearhead improvement of contact dermatitis education in residency programs.
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 | 0.029 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".