Current biopsy practices for suspected melanoma: A survey of family physicians in Southwestern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Family physicians (FPs) have an opportunity to diagnose pigmented lesions early with a timely biopsy. Objective To assess current biopsy practices used by FPs in diagnosing melanoma. Methods A computer-generated random sample of 200 practicing FPs from large and small communities in Southwestern Ontario was identified from the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario physician directory. Paper-based surveys exploring practice setting, basic melanoma knowledge, biopsy practices and referral wait times were mailed using a modified Dillman protocol. Results The response rate was 50% and respondents reflected the demographic characteristics of FPs nationwide as per the National Physician Survey. Knowledge testing revealed reasonable mean (± SD) scores (3.2±1.03 of 5). Twenty percent of respondents would always perform an excisional biopsy of skin lesions suspicious for melanoma. The remaining 80% would avoid an excisional biopsy in an aesthetically sensitive area and if there was risk of failure to close the defect primarily, among other reasons. If an excisional biopsy were not performed, one-half of respondents would perform an incisional biopsy (eg, punch biopsy). In large communities, 24% of patients were not seen by a surgeon within six months when referred without a tissue biopsy, leading to delayed diagnosis. Discussion Educating and supporting FPs to perform incisional biopsies in cases for which excisional biopsies are inappropriate should result in earlier diagnosis of melanoma. Conclusion FPs appropriately recognize that excisional biopsies are ideal in melanoma management and one-half will move on to an incisional biopsy when excision is not appropriate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".