Is Access to Care Associated With Stage at Presentation and Survival for Melanoma Patients?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Melanoma incidence increases with socioeconomic status but the effect of rurality and access to primary care or dermatology on patient outcomes is unclear. Objectives The objectives of this study were to determine whether access to care, rurality, or socioeconomic status are associated with melanoma stage at presentation and prognosis. Methods Linked administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, were retrospectively analyzed to identify a population-based cohort of patients diagnosed with melanoma between 2004 and 2012. Rurality was assessed using the rural index of Ontario (RIO) score, and the number of visits to dermatology and primary care was used to evaluate access to care. Results We identified 18 776 melanoma patients, of whom 9591 had completed pathological staging. Patients with higher RIO scores, living further from a cancer center or in a rural community, were less likely to see a dermatologist in the year prior to diagnosis ( P < .001 for all). Patients seen by a dermatologist within 365 days prior to diagnosis were less likely to present with stage III or IV disease (odds ratio 0.63, P < .001) and had improved overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] for death 0.77, P < .001). There was a nonlinear association between number of family physician visits and melanoma prognosis, with patients who had 3 to 5 visits per year having the best overall survival (HR 0.88, P = .003). Conclusion Our findings strengthen the known association between access to dermatology and melanoma outcomes by linking individual patients’ prediagnosis access to care to pathological stage at diagnosis and overall survival.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".