Association between melanoma thickness, clinical skin examination and socioeconomic status: Results of a large population‐based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Survival from melanoma is inversely related to tumour thickness and is less favorable for those in lower socioeconomic (SES) strata. Reasons for this are unclear but may relate to a lower prevalence of skin screening. Our aim was to examine the association between melanoma thickness, individual-level SES and clinical skin examination (CSE) using a population-based case-control study. Cases were Queensland (Australia) residents aged 20-75 years with a histologically confirmed first primary invasive cutaneous melanoma diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2003. Telephone interviews were completed by 3,762 cases (77.7%) and 3,824 (50.4%) controls. Thickness was dichotomized to thin (≤2 mm) and thick (>2 mm). Compared with controls, the risk of thick melanoma was significantly increased among men [relative risk ratio (RRR) = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.22-2.00], older participants (RRR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.10-2.82), those educated to primary level (RRR = 1.70, 95% CI = 1.08-2.66), not married/living as married (RRR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.15-1.88), retired (RRR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.01-1.94) and not having a CSE in past 3 years (RRR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.12-1.86). There was a significant trend to increasing prevalence of CSE with higher education (p < 0.01) and the benefit of CSE in reducing the risk of thick melanoma was most pronounced among that subgroup. There were no significant associations between cases with thin melanoma and controls. Melanoma thickness at presentation is significantly associated with educational level, other measures of SES and absence of CSE. Public health education efforts should focus on identifying new avenues that specifically target those subgroups of the population who are at increased risk of being diagnosed with thick melanoma.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".