Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on skin cancer diagnosis: A population-based study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has been unprecedented and led to drastic reductions in nonurgent medical visits. Deferral of these visits may have critical health impact, including delayed diagnosis for melanoma and other skin cancers. We examined the influence of the pandemic on skin biopsy rates in a large population-based cohort. ApproachUsing the universal health care claims dataset from Ontario, Canada, we examined skin biopsies from January 6, 2020 to September 27, 2020, and compared these to the same period for 2019. Those diagnosed with anogenital cancers, younger than 20 years, residing out-of-province and with lapses in coverage were excluded. The sensitivity and specificity of claims diagnoses were evaluated with a validated algorithm that identifies keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) in Ontario, and the Ontario Cancer Registry for melanoma cancer. Factors associated with biopsy during the early pandemic were investigated with modified Poisson regression. ResultsA precipitous drop in total skin biopsies (down to 15% of expected), biopsies for KC (18%) and melanoma (27%) was seen with the onset of COVID-19 cases (p<0.01). Claims diagnoses were of high specificity for KC (99%), and for melanoma (98%), though sensitivity was less (61% and 28%, respectively). In adjusted analysis, the elderly (80+ years), females and residents of certain regions were less likely to be biopsied during the pandemic. Subsequently, there were substantial improvements in biopsy rates over 10 weeks. However, compared to 2019, a large backlog of expected cases still remained 28 weeks after lockdown (45,710 all biopsy, 9,104 KC and 595 melanoma). ConclusionA drastic reduction in skin biopsies is noted early in the COVID-19 pandemic; this disproportionately affected the elderly, females and certain geographic regions. Though biopsies subsequently increased, a large backlog of cases remained after almost half a year. This will have implications for downstream care of skin cancer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".