Evaluation of sun protection behaviour in patients following excision of a skin lesion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present prospective study evaluated sun exposure and sun protection behaviours in patients diagnosed with a precancerous or cancerous skin lesion. Following signed informed consent, patients were given a questionnaire regarding sun protection and sun exposure behaviour. There were 50 patients (27 men, 23 women) with a mean age of 59 years. Following diagnosis of a cancerous or precancerous lesion, there was a significant increase (P<0.001) in sunscreen use, use of sun protection factor greater than 30, wearing a hat and avoidance of sun between 10:00 and 14:00. There were significantly more women who used sunscreen (P=0.04) and limited daily activities (P=0.03). There were significantly more patients with nonmelanoma lesions who wore hats (P<0.04) and more patients with melanoma who limited daily activities (P<0.04). While many patients in the present study did alter their sun protection and exposure behaviour, there were many patients who continued in risk-taking sun behaviour. Therefore, patients with precancerous or cancerous skin lesions who are not compliant with sun protective behaviour may benefit from more comprehensive patient education to encourage better sun protection behaviour.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".