MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121493648 · doi:10.1016/j.xjidi.2021.100002

Differences in Melanoma Between Canada and New South Wales, Australia: A Population-Based Genes, Environment, and Melanoma (GEM) Study

2021· article· en· W3121493648 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joseph Michael Yardman‐Frank, Elyssa Glassheim, Anne Kricker, Bruce K. Armstrong, Loraine D. Marrett, Li Luo, Anne Ε. Cust, Klaus J. Busam, Irene Orlow, Richard P. Gallagher, Stephen B. Gruber, Hoda Anton‐Culver, Stefano Rosso, Roberto Zanetti, Lidia Sacchetto, Peter A. Kanetsky, Terence Dwyer, Alison Venn, J. Lee‐Taylor, Colin B. Begg, Nancy E. Thomas, Marianne Berwick

Bibliographic record

VenueJID Innovations · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Ontario
FundersCancer Council NSWNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillNational Institutes of HealthMoffitt Cancer CenterMenzies Institute for Medical ResearchUniversity of SydneyUniversity of TasmaniaUniversity of OxfordNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterCancer Care OntarioNational Cancer InstituteEmory UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsMelanomaIncidence (geometry)MedicineEtiologyPopulationLentigo maligna melanomaDemographyEpidemiologyDermatologyPathologyEnvironmental healthCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an effort to understand the difference between melanomas diagnosed in Australia (New South Wales) and Canada, where the incidence in New South Wales is almost three times greater than in Canada, and mortality is twice as high although survival is slightly more favorable, we had one pathologist review 1,271 melanomas from British Columbia and Ontario, Canada, to compare these to melanomas in New South Wales, Australia. We hypothesized that histopathologic characteristics might provide insight into divergent pathways to melanoma development. We found a number of differences in risk factors and tumor characteristics between the two geographic areas. There were higher mole counts and darker phenotypes in the Canadian patients, while the Australian patients had greater solar elastosis, more lentigo maligna melanomas, and more tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. We hypothesize that the differences observed may illustrate different etiologies – the cumulative exposure pathway among Australian patients and the nevus pathway among Canadian patients. This is one of the largest studies investigating the divergent pathway hypothesis and is particularly robust due to the evaluation of all lesions by one dermatopathologist. In an effort to understand the difference between melanomas diagnosed in Australia (New South Wales) and Canada, where the incidence in New South Wales is almost three times greater than in Canada, and mortality is twice as high although survival is slightly more favorable, we had one pathologist review 1,271 melanomas from British Columbia and Ontario, Canada, to compare these to melanomas in New South Wales, Australia. We hypothesized that histopathologic characteristics might provide insight into divergent pathways to melanoma development. We found a number of differences in risk factors and tumor characteristics between the two geographic areas. There were higher mole counts and darker phenotypes in the Canadian patients, while the Australian patients had greater solar elastosis, more lentigo maligna melanomas, and more tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. We hypothesize that the differences observed may illustrate different etiologies – the cumulative exposure pathway among Australian patients and the nevus pathway among Canadian patients. This is one of the largest studies investigating the divergent pathway hypothesis and is particularly robust due to the evaluation of all lesions by one dermatopathologist.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJID InnovationsSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207