MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318609323 · doi:10.2196/37758

Recommendations From a Chinese-Language Survey of Knowledge and Prevention of Skin Cancer Among Chinese Populations Internationally: Cross-sectional Questionnaire Study

2023· article· en· W4318609323 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lily Y. Chen, Wei Niu, Kristina Lim, James Solomon

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Dermatology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Central Florida
KeywordsMedicineChinaChinese peopleEthnic groupCross-sectional studyChinese americansFamily medicineDemographyNationalityImmigrationPathologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of studies assessing awareness and prevention of skin cancer among Chinese populations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare attitudes and practices regarding skin cancer risks and prevention between Chinese Asian and North American Chinese populations and between Fitzpatrick scores. METHODS: A cross-sectional, internet-based, 74-question survey in Chinese was conducted focusing on Han Chinese participants internationally. The survey included Likert-type scales and multiple-choice questions. All participants were required to read Chinese and self-identify as being 18 years or older and Chinese by ethnicity, nationality, or descent. Participants were recruited on the internet over a 6-month period from July 2017 through January 2018 via advertisements in Chinese on popular social media platforms: WeChat, QQ, Weibo, Facebook, and Twitter. RESULTS: Of the 113 completed responses collected (participation rate of 65.7%), 95 (84.1%) were ethnically Han Chinese, of which 93 (96.9%) were born in China and 59 (62.1%) were female. The mean age of these 95 participants was 35.8 (SD 13.3) years; 72 (75.8%) participants were born after 1975. Few but more North American Chinese reported that Chinese Asian populations received annual skin checks (4/30, 4.2% vs 0/65, 0%; P=.009) and believed that their clinician provided adequate sun safety education (13/30, 43.3% vs 15/65, 23.1%; P=.04). Participants with higher Fitzpatrick scores less frequently received sun safety education from a clinician (4/34, 11.8% vs 22/61, 36.1%; P=.02). More participants with lower Fitzpatrick scores used sunscreen (41/61, 67.2% vs 16/34, 47.1%; P=.05), but alternative sun protection use rates are similar across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Cultural differences and Fitzpatrick scores can affect knowledge and practices with respect to sun protection and skin cancer among social media-using Chinese Asian and North American Chinese communities based on respondent demographics. Most participants in all groups understood that people of color have some risk of skin cancer, but >30% of all groups across regions and Fitzpatrick scores are unaware of current skin protection recommendations, receive insufficient sun safety education, and do not use sunscreen. Outreach efforts may begin broadly with concerted public and private efforts to train and fund dermatologists to perform annual total body skin exams and provide more patient education. They should spark community interest through mass media and empower Chinese people to perform self-examinations and recognize risks and risk mitigation methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.388 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR DermatologySame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207