Patient Indications for Mohs Micrographic Surgery: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present review was to describe evidence-based indications for Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) in patients with a diagnosis of skin cancer. Relevant studies were identified from a systematic MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews search of studies published from 1970 to 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective comparative studies with greater than 30 patients, and single-arm retrospective studies with multivariate analyses were included. A total of 2 RCTs, 3 prospective studies, and 16 retrospective studies (14 comparative and 2 single-arm) were included. Data on recurrence rate, cure rate, complications, cosmesis, and quality of life were extracted. Surgery (with postoperative or intraoperative marginal assessment) or radiation for those who are ineligible for surgery should remain the standard of care for patients with skin cancer given the lack of high-quality, comparative evidence. MMS is recommended for those with histologically confirmed recurrent basal cell carcinoma (BCC) of the face and is appropriate for primary BCCs of the face that are >1 cm, have aggressive histology, or are located on the H zone of the face. The available evidence is difficult to generalize to all patients with skin cancer because the evidence did not adequately cover non-BCC skin cancers; however, those skin cancers can be considered on a case-by-case basis for MMS. MMS should be performed by physicians who have completed a degree in medicine or equivalent, including a Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada Specialist Certificate or equivalent, and have received advanced training in MMS.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".