Treatment for Lentigo Maligna of the Head and Neck: Survey of Practices in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lentigo maligna is an in situ form of cutaneous melanoma that commonly arises on the head and neck. Various surgical and nonsurgical treatment options are available but no randomized trials exist to guide practice. OBJECTIVE: To determine the current treatment practices for lentigo maligna of the head and neck in Ontario, Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of dermatologists, plastic surgeons, and head and neck surgeons. RESULTS: The response rate was 35% (190/542). Wide excision with immediate reconstruction was the most commonly recommended treatment for tumors on the cheek (69%), whereas staged excision with margin control was recommended most often for tumors on the nasal ala (60%). Overall, 5 mm was the most frequently recommended initial surgical margin (69%); 26.5% of respondents recommended margins wider than 5 mm. For tumors on the nasal ala, eyelid, and ear helix, more than 30% of respondents recommended an initial margin narrower than 5 mm. CONCLUSION: Although surgical excision is the predominant treatment modality for lentigo maligna on the head and neck, practices vary considerably in terms of the type of excision and the initial margin used. Potential response bias and the geographic restriction of our sample may limit the generalizability of our results.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".