Systematic review of melanoma incidence and prognosis in solid organ transplant recipients
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutaneous melanoma carries the potential for substantial morbidity and mortality in the solid organ transplant population. We systematically reviewed the literature published from January 1995 to January 2012 to determine the overall relative risk and prognosis of melanoma in transplant recipients. Our search identified 7,512 citations. Twelve unique non-overlapping studies reported the population-based incidence of melanoma in an inception cohort of solid organ transplant recipients. Compared to the general population, there is a 2.4-fold (95% confidence interval, 2.0 to 2.9) increased incidence of melanoma after transplantation. No population-based outcome data were identified for melanoma arising post-transplant. Data from non-population based cohort studies suggest a worse prognosis for late-stage melanoma developing after transplantation compared with the general population. For patients with a history of pre-transplant melanoma, one population-based study reported a local recurrence rate of 11% (2/19) after transplantation, although staging and survival information was lacking. There is a need for population-based data on the prognosis of melanoma arising pre- and post-transplantation. Increased incidence and potentially worse melanoma outcomes in this high-risk population have implications for clinical care in terms of prevention, screening and reduction of immunosuppression after melanoma development post-transplant, as well as transplantation decisions in patients with a history of pre-transplant 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it