The Accuracy of Measurements of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Sizes Referred to the Mohs Surgery Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumour size is a crucial factor used to plan Mohs procedures. Larger tumours require more time and stages of excision, and they need to be triaged as a higher priority. Therefore, the accuracy in measurement of tumour size is critical. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if there is a significant difference in accuracy of tumour measurements in referrals between dermatologists and nondermatologists. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Performed a retrospective study of 180 referrals from dermatologists and 47 referrals from nondermatologists to The Ottawa Hospital Riverside Mohs Surgery Clinic. We compared the mean size difference of tumours between the preoperative size and the size reported on referral. RESULTS: larger than that reported from dermatologists and nondermatologists, respectively ( P < .05). The duration between referral and preoperative assessment was 3 to 4 months for both groups ( P = .26). CONCLUSION: The accuracy of tumour measurements between dermatologists and nondermatologists differed significantly, as nondermatologists underestimated the size of NMSCs. This directly affects triaging patients and operative management in Mohs surgery. To compensate for size underestimation, early and prompt referrals of NMSCs from nondermatologists are warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".