Sun-related behavior after a diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutaneous malignant melanoma is a significant public health problem in Western countries, and the probability that patients with one melanoma will develop a second one is high. This study is an attempt to assess and understand sun-related behavior in patients subsequent to a melanoma diagnosis. We recruited 35 melanoma patients diagnosed in 2001 or 2002, who resided in the Greater Vancouver Regional District of British Columbia, Canada, and 35 controls frequency matched by broad age-group, sex, ethnicity, and area of residence to patients. All participants were interviewed over the telephone in the autumn of 2003 to ascertain their outdoor activities for the previous summer months (June-August) of 2003, along with their clothing preferences, sunscreen use, sunburn frequency, and knowledge and attitudes regarding sun exposure and tanning. Patients were less involved in outdoor recreational activities than controls (mean monthly hours 23.0 vs. 31.0, P=0.023). In addition, patients protected themselves from sun exposure using clothing and sunscreen more often than controls. However, the data also revealed that patients still engaged in outdoor activities to a substantial degree, often without sun protection. Furthermore, 27% still had a positive or neutral attitude toward tanning, even after melanoma diagnosis. The continuing presence of unprotected episodes of summer sun exposure in patients with melanoma, coupled with sunburn prevalence similar to normal controls, suggests that better education and behavior modification programs are needed for patients with melanoma. The results may indicate the need for more emphasis on post-treatment counseling by physicians.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".