MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193549844 · doi:10.1097/cmr.0000000000000764

Metastatic acral melanoma treatment outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3193549844 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMelanoma Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisMelanomaDermatologyOncologyMetastatic melanomaInternal medicineCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acral melanomas are a unique subset of melanomas occurring on the palms, soles, and nails. There is poor prognosis with surgery alone and no specific guidelines for the treatment of metastatic acral melanoma. This meta-analysis explored the systemic therapy outcomes for metastatic acral melanoma. Medline, Pubmed, EMBASE, and the grey literature were searched from 2010 to August 2020 for studies specifying the treatment outcome of metastatic acral melanoma. Studies were assessed by two investigators. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed and pooled Kaplan-Meier curves for progression-free survival and overall survival were created. Critical appraisal was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Nineteen nonrandomized studies were included, comprising 646 patients with acral melanomas and 1609 patients with nonacral melanomas treated with systemic therapy including chemotherapy, KIT-targeted drugs, as well as anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Thirteen studies included Kaplan-Meier curves for progression-free survival or overall survival and 11 studies reported treatment responses. Patients with acral melanomas had worse prognosis than nonacral cutaneous melanoma (acral overall survival: median 15 months, 95% CI, 13.7-16.3 months; nonacral cutaneous: median 24 months, 95% CI, 22.6-25.4 months, P < 0.001). Acral melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 monotherapy had higher overall survival at 12 months (53%) compared with anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy (34%; P < 0.001). This study provides estimates of treatment response for metastatic acral melanoma, demonstrating low activity across a breadth of approved drug therapies, including anti-PD-1, the most active therapy in melanoma to date. Further research into treatments for metastatic acral melanoma is needed.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.158 · 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