Tanning Beds, Sunlamps, and Risk of Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma
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
BACKGROUND: A number of studies have been conducted evaluating the risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma after exposure to sunlamps and/or sunbeds. The proportion of subjects in the individual studies who have reported exposure has, in general, been modest, and the resulting risk estimates for melanoma have been unstable with wide 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The inconclusive results seen in individual studies have resulted in confusion as to the carcinogenicity of these devices. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of these studies. A review of the literature from Jan 1, 1984 to April 2004 using MEDLINE identified 12 case-control studies and 1 cohort study which quantitatively evaluated the use of sunlamps and/or sunbeds and subsequent melanoma. After applying exclusion/inclusion criteria, 9 case-control and 1 cohort study provided data for the analysis. Summary odds ratios (OR) and 95% CIs for sunlamp/sunbed use and subsequent melanoma were calculated using a random-effect model. RESULTS: Ten studies provided data for assessment of melanoma risk among subjects who reported "ever" being exposed compared with those "never" exposed. A positive association was found between exposure and risk (summary OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49). Significant heterogeneity between studies was present. Evaluation of the metrics "first exposure as a young adult" (5 studies) and "longest duration or highest frequency of exposure" (6 studies) also yielded significantly elevated risk estimates (summary OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.32-2.18, and 1.61; 95% CI, 1.21-2.12, respectively, with no heterogeneity in either analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate a significantly increased risk of cutaneous melanoma subsequent to sunbed/sunlamp exposure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 it