Risk of Second Primary Cancer and Death Following a Diagnosis of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer-free patients diagnosed with a first primary nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) offer an opportunity for studying the risk of a second primary cancer without the confounding effect of systemic treatment. The objective of the study was to estimate the risk of second primary cancer in people with a history of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and the risk of dying in cancer patients with a NMSC history. BCC and SCC cases diagnosed between 1956 and 2000 in Manitoba, Canada were followed-up for second primaries (other than NMSC). Standardized incidence and mortality ratios (SIR and SMR) were calculated. Men [SIR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.02-1.10] and women (SIR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12) with a BCC history as well as men (SIR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) with a SCC history were at greater risk of a second primary cancer. Overall, the increased risk was observed only in the first 4 years following a NMSC, although it remained increased for specific cancer sites. The risk remained higher in all age groups up to 75 years of age. People with a history of BCC (males: SMR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.14; females: SMR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.16-1.32) or SCC (males: SMR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.27; females: SMR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.35-1.79) had a greater risk of death following their second primaries. Even if NMSC patients are at greater risk of a second cancer, it is not recommended to follow them up beyond the generally accepted periodic examination of the skin.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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) | 0.001 | 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 it