MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123678542

Optimal excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

2003· review· en· W2123678542 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialRelative riskMelanomaMEDLINESurgeryWide local excisionPopulationConfidence intervalDermatologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine in patients with localized primary melanoma of the trunk or extremities the optimal excision margin that achieves the highest disease-free survival and overall survival and the lowest local recurrence rate. DATA SOURCES: Trials comparing 2 different excision margins were identified by searching MEDLINE from 1966 to May 2002 using the term "melanoma," subheading "surgery," and limiting the search to human studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Additional studies were found using the MeSH term "surgical procedures, operative," combining with "melanoma," and limiting to human studies. We searched EMBASE and the Cochrane Library in May 2002 using similar terminology. No language restriction was applied. STUDY SELECTION: We selected studies for the overview using the following inclusion criteria: design--an RCT with wide excision versus narrower excision (margin width was not specified a priori); population--adult patients (> 18 yr) with cutaneous melanoma of the trunk or extremities without evidence of metastasis; intervention--surgical excision of the primary melanoma; and outcomes--at least 1 of overall survival, disease-free survival, local recurrence, wound complications and necessity for skin grafting. DATA EXTRACTION: Information was abstracted for each outcome reported in the studies, and results were pooled by consensus. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 4.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration) software program. Relative risk and risk difference were reported with 95% confidence intervals. The number needed to harm was calculated for the need for skin grafting by taking the inverse of the risk difference. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three trials and their follow-up studies met the inclusion criteria and included 2087 adults with localized cutaneous melanoma of the trunk or extremities. No statistically significant differences were found between wide surgical excision (margins ranging from 3-5 cm) and narrower surgical excision (margins ranging from 1-2 cm) with respect to mortality, disease-free survival or local recurrence rate. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical excision margins no more than 2 cm around a melanoma of the trunk or extremities are adequate; overall survival, disease-free survival and recurrence rate are not adversely affected compared with a wider excision. There is more data to support a 2-cm margin than a 1-cm margin as the minimum margin of excision. Surgical margins should be no less than 1 cm around the primary 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it