Dysplastic naevi with moderate to severe histological dysplasia: a risk factor for melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of malignant melanoma associated with histologically dysplastic naevi (HDN) has not been defined. While clinically atypical naevi appear to confer an independent risk of melanoma, no study has evaluated the extent to which HDN are predictive of melanoma. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the risk of melanoma associated with HDN. Secondarily, the risk associated with number of naevi and large naevi is estimated. METHODS: We enrolled 80 patients with newly diagnosed melanoma along with 80 spousal controls. After obtaining information on melanoma risk factors and performing a complete cutaneous examination, the most clinically atypical naevus was biopsied in both cases and controls. Histological dysplasia was then assessed independently by 13 dermatopathologists (0, no dysplasia; 1, mild dysplasia; 2, moderate dysplasia; 3, severe dysplasia). The dermatopathologists were blinded as to whether the naevi were from melanoma subjects or controls. Multivariate analyses were performed to determine if there was an independent association between the degree of histological dysplasia in naevi and a personal history of melanoma. RESULTS: In persons with naevi receiving an average score of > 1 (i.e. naevi considered to have greater than mild histological dysplasia), there was an increased risk of melanoma [odds ratio (OR) 2.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-6.86] which persisted after adjustment for confounders (OR 3.99, 95% CI 1.02-15.71). Very few dermatopathologists reliably graded naevi of subjects with melanoma as being more dysplastic than naevi of control subjects. Among the entire group, the interobserver reliability associated with grading histological dysplasia in naevi was poor (weighted kappa 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: HDN do appear to confer an independent risk of melanoma. However, this result may add more to our biological understanding of melanoma risk than to clinical assessment of risk, because HDN assessed by a single pathologist generally cannot be used to assess risk of melanoma. Future studies should be directed at establishing reproducible, predictive criteria for grading naevi.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".