[Incidence of melanoma among young people: likely to be lower than reported].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent study has concluded that the incidence rate of head and neck melanomas in children and young people in Canada and the United States has increased over the last 20 years.However, other studies have shown that in the Netherlands and North America, the incidence of all melanomas among teenagers and young adults is falling, and certainly not rising.What is the reason for these contradictory results?Although the Canadian-American study saw an increase in melanoma of the head and neck region in people < 40 years-old, melanomas in the head and neck region represent only 12% of all melanomas in this age group.Other North American researchers have investigated the incidence of melanomas on all parts of the body and have come to the conclusion that the incidence rates among young people fell between 2001-2015. An analysis of data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) shows that the incidence of melanoma in young children has not risen in 25 years. The Canadian-American study into the incidence of melanomas in children and young adults only included 12% of all melanomas and the age group studied was too broad (ages 15-39). It is highly likely that it is for this reason that the falling trend among teenagers and young adults did not come to light.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".