Evaluation of the efficacy of 3D total-body photography with sequential digital dermoscopy in a high-risk melanoma cohort: protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Melanoma is Australia's fourth most common cancer. Early detection is fundamental in maximising health outcomes and minimising treatment costs. To date, population-based screening programmes have not been justified in health economic studies. However, a skin surveillance approach targeting high-risk individuals could improve the cost-benefit ratio. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This paper describes a 2-year longitudinal randomised controlled trial (RCT) to compare routine clinical care (control) with an intensive skin surveillance programme (intervention) consisting of novel three-dimensional (3D) total-body photography (TBP), sequential digital dermoscopy and melanoma-risk stratification, in a high-risk melanoma cohort. Primary outcomes will evaluate clinical, economic and consumer impact of the intervention. Clinical outcomes will evaluate differences in the rate of lesion excisions/biopsies per person, benign to malignant ratio for excisions and thickness of melanomas diagnosed. A health economic analysis using government data repositories will capture healthcare utilisation and costs relating to skin surveillance. Consumer questionnaires will examine intervention acceptability, the psychological impact, and attitudes towards melanoma risk and sun protective behaviour. Secondary outcomes include the development of a holistic risk algorithm incorporating clinical, phenotypic and genetic factors to facilitate the identification of those most likely to benefit from this surveillance approach. Furthermore, the feasibility of integrating the intervention with teledermatology to enhance specialist care in remote locations will be evaluated. This will be the first RCT to compare a targeted surveillance programme utilising new 3D TBP technology against current routine clinical care for individuals at high risk of melanoma. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approval from both Metro South Health HREC (HREC/17/QPAH/816) and The University of Queensland HREC (2018000074). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR12618000267257; Pre-results.
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 | 0.056 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.016 |
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".