Melanoma survivors are at increased risk for second primary keratinocyte carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent large cohorts have reported that melanoma survivors are at risk of developing second keratinocyte carcinoma (KC). However, the detailed proportion and risk are still unknown. We aimed to comprehensively analyze the risk of developing keratinocyte carcinoma after primary melanoma. METHODS: We conducted systematic literature research in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library published prior to September 13, 2021. Proportion and standardized incidence ratios (SIR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled for assessing the risk. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies encompassing 168,286 patients were included in our analysis. The pooled proportions of melanoma survivors that developed a subsequent basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and KC were 4.11% (95% CI, 1.32-6.90), 2.54% (95% CI, 1.78-3.31), and 5.45% (95% CI, 3.06-7.84), respectively. The risks of developing a second BCC, SCC, and KC in melanoma survivors were 5.3-fold (SIR 5.30; 95% CI, 4.87-5.77), 2.6-fold (SIR 2.58; 95% CI, 1.33-5.04), and 6.2-fold (SIR 6.17; 95% CI, 3.66-10.39) increased in comparison with the general population. Both fixed effects and random effects models were applied in conducting meta-analysis and reached a consistent conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated melanoma survivors are at elevated risk of experiencing second primary BCC and SCC, which suggested the significance of surveillance for second primary KC and efforts for prevention in patients with a history of melanoma.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".