Skin cancer screening after solid organ transplantation: Survey of practices in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guidelines recommend annual dermatology screening after solid organ transplantation to facilitate early detection of keratinocyte carcinoma (nonmelanoma skin cancer), the most common posttransplant malignancy. There are limited data on adherence levels and barriers to screening. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 477 physicians and nurses providing posttransplant care in Canada. The questionnaire asked about skin cancer screening and education practices, including the perceived importance and barriers. Whereas care providers viewed skin cancer screening as important for adult patients (median rating of 10/10, interquartile range 8-10), only 53% ensured annual screening for white adult transplant recipients. Having a screening policy in place (adjusted odds ratio 6.78, 95% confidence interval 3.12-14.74) and a dermatologist present at the transplant center (adjusted odds ratio 2.19, 95% confidence interval 1.03-4.67) were independently associated with higher adherence. Long wait times, lack of specialized transplant dermatologists, long travel distances, and insufficient priority were cited as the most common barriers for access to dermatologic care. Skin cancer education was provided to patients by over three quarters of care providers. Given the self-reported lack of adherence to annual skin cancer screening, there is need to develop, evaluate, and implement interventions that improve screening rates and skin cancer outcomes. Guidelines recommend annual dermatology screening after solid organ transplantation to facilitate early detection of keratinocyte carcinoma (nonmelanoma skin cancer), the most common posttransplant malignancy. There are limited data on adherence levels and barriers to screening. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 477 physicians and nurses providing posttransplant care in Canada. The questionnaire asked about skin cancer screening and education practices, including the perceived importance and barriers. Whereas care providers viewed skin cancer screening as important for adult patients (median rating of 10/10, interquartile range 8-10), only 53% ensured annual screening for white adult transplant recipients. Having a screening policy in place (adjusted odds ratio 6.78, 95% confidence interval 3.12-14.74) and a dermatologist present at the transplant center (adjusted odds ratio 2.19, 95% confidence interval 1.03-4.67) were independently associated with higher adherence. Long wait times, lack of specialized transplant dermatologists, long travel distances, and insufficient priority were cited as the most common barriers for access to dermatologic care. Skin cancer education was provided to patients by over three quarters of care providers. Given the self-reported lack of adherence to annual skin cancer screening, there is need to develop, evaluate, and implement interventions that improve screening rates and skin cancer outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".