Compliance with Self-Examination Surveillance in Patients with Melanoma and Atypical Moles: An Anonymous Questionnaire Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regular skin self-examination is suggested as a means to detect melanomas at an early stage and thus improve prognosis. Compliance, however, has seldom been assessed in a routine clinical setting and anonymously. OBJECTIVES: To assess compliance with self-examination in patients with either a previous melanoma or atypical moles (dysplastic nevi) and to examine the perceived utility of supplied photographs. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to all patients seen with either a melanoma or atypical moles between the years 1995 and 2005. The melanoma cohort consisted of 143 patients. There were 440 patients with atypical moles. RESULTS: Replies to the questionnaire were received from 94 of the melanoma patients and from 185 patients in the atypical mole cohort. Only 22% (12) in the melanoma group performed a total skin examination monthly. Fewer than 10% of those with atypical moles did a monthly skin examination, but about half of the patients examined their entire skin more than once a year. CONCLUSION: Self-examination is practiced in the majority of patients with either a previous melanoma or atypical moles. Those doing this on a regular monthly basis are a small minority.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".