Management of congenital melanocytic nevi in the plastic surgery clinic: Families′ expectations and their persistent concern about malignancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with congenital melanocytic nevi (CMN) were historically managed with surgical removal to lower the risk of malignant transformation. The evolving literature over the last decade has indicated a significantly lower risk than previously estimated. Indications for excision currently revolve around aesthetic and psychosocial concerns. This study describes and evaluates the perspectives and expectations of patients and families referred to a pediatric plastic surgery clinic on CMN management. METHOD: A two-part questionnaire was administered before and after an initial clinic appointment to evaluate patient and family concerns of lesion growth, risk of malignancy, treatment expectations, and stigmatization. RESULTS: Thirty questionnaires were completed for 11 male and 19 female patients, mean age 9.2 years (1-25). Referring doctors (majority dermatologists) were rarely concerned about malignancy (8%), but parents listed it as a top reason for wanting the CMN removed (37%) and the most common expectation for the visit followed by information about surgical options and outcome. Before the clinic, 93% were at least "slightly" worried about CMN growth and 96% about malignancy, whereas 63% and 72%, respectively, after the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Families want information about surgical excision and are concerned about malignancy, indicating lingering misinformation or misconception about melanoma risk. For the majority, CMN removal remains at least slightly important, presumably for aesthetic reasons and remaining concern about malignancy. Involved health care professionals should assure reliable and coherent patient information about MM risk, indications for surgery and expected outcome to best support families' decision-making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".