Skin Self-Examination: Partner Comfort and Support During Examinations as Predictors of Self-Efficacy in Patients At Risk for Melanoma Recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin self-examination (SSE) is an effective method for melanoma survivors to detect potential cancerous growths sooner. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine whether the SSE self-efficacy of patients with melanoma and their partners is affected by their partners' comfort and support during skin examinations. METHODS: 100 patient-partner dyads completed a 25-item sociodemographic questionnaire. Fifty-two partners attended an education session with the patient on skin examinations and the early detection of melanoma. All patients attended the education session. FINDINGS: Having their partners attend the education session, as well as being supportive and comfortable with skin examinations, significantly predicted patients' self-efficacy with SSEs. In addition, male patients were found to be significantly more comfortable with partner-assisted skin examinations and reported feeling more supported by their partner than female patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".