A comparison of skin grafts versus local flaps for facial skin cancer from the patient perspective: protocol for a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BRIEF ABSTRACT: This is a protocol to assess feasibility of conducting a prospective cohort study comparing local flaps versus skin grafts for surgical excision of skin cancer from the face. INTRODUCTION: Skin cancer is the most common malignancy worldwide and the face is one of the most common locations of occurrence. Surgical excision is the most popular treatment for small lesions of the face. Defects can be reconstructed using local flaps or skin grafts. There is a paucity of literature evaluating outcomes after skin cancer surgery from the patient's perspective using valid measurement tools. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a prospective observational cohort study. The primary outcomes include recruitment rates, eligibility rate, compliance of intervention and rate of completion of the primary outcome (FACE-Q scales) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include examining patient characteristic and FACE-Q score differences between local flaps to skin grafts and adverse events. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a prospective cohort study consisting of an anticipated 30 patients aged ≥18 years. The study population will consist of a consecutive sample of non-melanoma facial skin cancer patients undergoing a skin graft or local flap. Patients will be followed and evaluated with the FACE-Q questionnaire at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year post-operation. The following criteria will determine success: patients who meet eligibility criteria >70%; recruitment rate >70%; compliance with intervention >90%; rate of completion of full-scale prospective study primary outcome (FACE-Q at 3 months) >80%; retention rate at 6-month follow-up visit >70%. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study will be used to guide the sample size calculation for a future, large-scale prospective study.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04842279).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".