Patient Indications for Mohs Micrographic Surgery: A Clinical Practice Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of the present work was to develop evidence-based indications for Mohs micrographic surgery in patients with a diagnosis of skin cancer. Methods: The guideline was developed by Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care, together with the Melanoma Disease Site Group and the Surgical Oncology Program, through a systematic review of relevant literature, patient- and caregiver-specific consultation, and internal and external reviews. Recommendation 1: Given a lack of high-quality, comparative evidence, surgery (with postoperative or intraoperative margin assessment) or radiation (for those who are ineligible for surgery) should remain the standard of care for patients with skin cancer. Recommendation 2: Mohs micrographic surgery is recommended for patients with histologically confirmed recurrent basal cell carcinoma of the face and is appropriate for primary basal cell carcinomas of the face that are larger than 1 cm, have aggressive histology, or are located on the H zone of the face. Recommendation 3: Mohs micrographic surgery 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 Mohs micrographic surgery.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".