Local surgical treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: deficits and controversies in the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prognostic impact of primary excision in the treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma depends on certain tumor characteristics (risk factors), the surgical approach chosen and the subsequent histological examination. For the development of the AWMF (Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany) guidelines for squamous cell carcinoma, the most conclusive guidelines available were evaluated using the DELBI tool (German Instrument for the Methodological Appraisal of Guidelines). These were the Scottish and Canadian guidelines as well as the joint guidelines published by EDF, EADO and EORTC. The primary literature on the aforementioned topics that was used for these guidelines included 49 studies and 9 reviews. None of the studies had a prospective, randomized design; 19 studies contained prospective data; 30 studies provided retrospective data. Overall, the results were heterogeneous. Not only were there discrepancies in terms of the validity of the various risk factors for locoregional disease progression - such as dedifferentiation, desmoplasia and perineural invasion - but also with respect to tumor thickness and surgical consequences. Differences were also found regarding the histological processing method used. In general, there are two such methods: conventional histology (bread loaf technique) and complete histological assessment of excision margins. The latter was found to be associated both with low recurrence rates and low metastatic rates, possibly due to the fact that patients treated with the latter method had lower-risk tumors. Publications on bread loaf histology lacked precise information as to how the tissue was actually processed. Likewise, there was a lack of usable data in terms of the surgical margins used in the primary excision. Conclusion: The current literature is inconsistent and insufficient with regard to the various prognostic factors and the surgical approach to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.
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 | 0.011 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".