Merkel cell carcinoma of skin-current controversies and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The review covers the current recommendations for Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC), with detailed discussion of many controversies. The 2010 AJCC staging system is more in-line with other skin malignancies although more complicated to use. The changes in staging system over time make comparison of studies difficult. A wide excision with margins of 2.5-3 cm is generally recommended. Even for primary </= 1 cm, there is a significant risk of nodal and distant metastases and hence sentinel node biopsy should be done if possible; otherwise adjuvant radiotherapy to the primary and nodal region should be given. Difficulties of setting up trials owing to the rarity of the disease and the mean age of the patient population result in infrequent reports of adjuvant or concurrent chemotherapy in the literature. The benefit, if any, is not great from published studies so far. However, there may be a subgroup of patients with high-risk features, e.g. node-positive and excellent performance status, for whom adjuvant or concurrent chemotherapy may be considered. Since local recurrence and metastases generally occur within 2 years of the initial diagnosis, patients should be followed more frequently in the first 2 years. However delayed recurrence can still occur in a small proportion of patients and long-term follow-up by a specialist is recommended provided that the general condition of the patient allows it. In summary, physician judgment in individual cases of MCC is advisable, to balance the risk of recurrence versus the complications of treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".