Clinicopathological comparisons of index and second primary melanomas in paediatric and adult populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The high incidence of cutaneous melanoma globally has sparked interest in the features associated with second primary melanomas (SPMs). OBJECTIVES: To identify differences and similarities between index and second primary melanomas while comparing the absolute and relative risk of subsequent melanoma development in paediatric and adult patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with invasive malignant melanoma from 1973 to 2008 inclusive was completed with data obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. RESULTS: In total, 208,289 patients were diagnosed with invasive melanoma in the SEER database from 1973 to 2008, with subsequent primary melanomas diagnosed in 6888 (3.3%). The incidence of SPMs increased with increasing age of diagnosis of the patient's first melanoma. However, the relative risk of developing a subsequent melanoma was nearly double for patients diagnosed with their first melanoma at the age of 19 years and younger compared with patients greater than the age of 19 years. Compared with a patient's initial invasive melanoma, 44% of the subjects had a different melanoma subtype with their subsequent melanoma. SPMs were located in a different anatomical site from the index malignancy in 55% of patients. Nodular melanomas were more common as index melanomas compared with SPMs. CONCLUSIONS: Although invasive cutaneous melanoma is primarily a malignancy of adulthood, the heightened relative risk of SPMs in the paediatric population calls for careful long-term scrutiny in this latter population following an index melanoma diagnosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".