Association of Indoor Tanning Exposure With Age at Melanoma Diagnosis and BRAF V600E Mutations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is limited information on how indoor tanning promotes melanoma development. We investigated indoor tanning use in patients with melanomas in sun-exposed skin and studied the clinicopathological and molecular characteristics in relation to indoor tanning exposure. Patients from a multidisciplinary clinic for cutaneous cancers completed standardized questionnaires on risk factors for melanoma as a component of medical history at their initial consultations. For this study, we included patients from December 2013 to May 2015. The 114 patients who reported indoor tanning exposure were younger at diagnosis than the 222 patients who did not (51.5 vs 64.0 years, two-sided P < .001). BRAF V600E genotype was more prevalent in ever-users than in nonusers (42.9% vs 28.3%, two-sided P = .04) and higher in ever-users who initiated indoor tanning prior to age 25 years compared with age 25 years or older (62.2% vs 31.1%, two-sided P = .003). There were more melanomas in intermittently sun-exposed skin in ever-users than nonusers (65.7% vs 51.9%, respectively, two-sided P = .02). Our data suggest indoor tanning may promote melanomas that arise in skin with low-chronic sun-induced damage through BRAF V600E-mediated melanomagenesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".