Melanoma Nodal Management in Ontario the Year after the 2012 American Society of Clinical Oncology and Society of Surgical Oncology Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In 2012 in the United States, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Society of Surgical Oncology (asco/sso) published a joint guideline about indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy (slnb) in cutaneous melanoma. The guideline supported completion lymph node dissection (clnd) for all patients with positive sentinel nodes. We examined the rates and predictors of slnb and clnd for melanoma patients in Ontario (population 13.6 million) after publication of that guideline. Methods: We used the Ontario Cancer Registry to identify patients diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma in 2013. Patient records were linked to prospectively maintained health administrative databases to obtain details for each patient, including surgical procedures. Results: = 1227, 62.2%) underwent local excision alone; 746 (37.8%) had a slnb. The slnb was performed in 13.9%, 67.8%, 62.6%, and 47.2% of patients with T1, T2, T3, and T4 primary melanomas respectively. In multivariate analysis, receipt of slnb was positively associated with younger age (<80 years), higher T stage, and a non-head-and-neck primary. Of the patients who had a slnb, 136 (18.2%) were found to be node-positive. A clnd was performed in 82 of those patients (60.3%). Conclusions: In Ontario, only two thirds of patients with intermediate-thickness melanomas (T2, T3) underwent slnb as recommended by the asco/sso guideline. Use of slnb was less frequent for patients with a head-and-neck primary and higher for younger patients (<80 years). The rate of clnd after a positive slnb was also low relative to the guideline recommendation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".