A 13-Year Retrospective Study of Basal Cell Carcinoma in a Canadian Dermatology Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the histologic subtypes of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) arise from a common progenitor cell or whether other factors play a role in their development. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between the different BCC histopathologic subtypes and anatomical distribution of BCCs in a Canadian dermatology practice. METHODS: The charts of all patients diagnosed with BCC between 1993 and 2005 from a single private dermatology practice in Vancouver, Canada, were reviewed. Descriptive data analysis was undertaken to look at the distribution of histologic subtypes based on age, gender, and anatomical location. RESULTS: Nodular BCCs accounted for 58% of all tumors. Sixty-six percent of these were situated on the head/neck (odds ratio [OR] = 3.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1-4.3, P < .0001). Infiltrative (OR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.5-4.1, P = .0003) and superficial BCCs were more common in women (OR = 3.7, 95% CI = 2.5-5.7, P < .0001), affected the trunk (OR = 3.2, 95% CI = 2.1-4.9, P < .0001), and appeared in younger individuals (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.2-2.7, P = .004). CONCLUSION: Our results show a preference of distinct BCC subtypes for certain anatomical locations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".