MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176113088 · doi:10.1002/cjp2.233

More than just acral melanoma: the controversies of defining the disease

2021· review· en· W3176113088 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sara Santos Bernardes, Ingrid Ferreira, David E. Elder, Aretha Brito Nobre, Héctor Martínez‐Said, David J. Adams, Carla Daniela Robles‐Espinoza, Patrícia A. Possik

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Pathology Clinical Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council CanadaFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroInternational Centre for Genetic Engineering and BiotechnologyWellcome TrustAcademy of Medical SciencesConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaCancer Research UKMelanoma Research Alliance
KeywordsDermatologyMelanomaAcral lentiginous melanomaMedicineDiseasePathologyNail (fastener)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acral melanoma (AM) is a malignant cutaneous melanocytic tumour specifically located on the palms, soles, and nail apparatus, which are areas of glabrous (hairless) skin. Acral lentiginous melanoma, a subtype of AM, represents a histopathological subtype diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma with unique morphological and structural features. Despite clear definitions, the misuse of these terms and the inconsistency in reporting the histopathological features of AM cases have become a major obstacle to the study of the disease. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology, histopathological features, prognosis, and genetic profile of AM, highlighting the differences observed when histopathological subtypes are considered. The increasing global effort to characterise AM cases from ethnically diverse populations would benefit greatly from a more consistent classification of the disease.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.282
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Pathology Clinical ResearchSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207