Skin Cancer Prevention across the G7, Australia and New Zealand: A Review of Legislation and Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Incidence rates of melanoma and keratinocyte skin cancers have been on the rise globally in recent decades. While there has been a select focus on personal sun protection awareness, to our knowledge, there is a paucity of legislation in place to help support citizens' efforts to protect themselves from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation (UVR). Given this, we conducted a comprehensive review of legislation and guidelines pertaining to a variety of sun protection-related topics in countries of the Group of Seven (G7), Australia and New Zealand. Australia was the only country to have banned tanning beds for individuals of all ages, while other select countries have instituted bans for minors. In workplace policy, there is very little recognition of the danger of occupational UVR exposure in outdoor workers, and thus very few protective measures are in place. With regard to sports and recreation, certain dermatological/professional associations have put forward recommendations, but no legislation was brought forward by government bodies outside of Australia and New Zealand. With regard to youth, while there are various guidelines and frameworks in place across several countries, adherence remains difficult in the absence of concrete legislation and standardization of procedures. Finally, only Australia and a few select jurisdictions in the United States have implemented sales tax exemptions for sunscreen products. In light of our findings, we have made several recommendations, which we anticipate will help reduce the rates of melanoma and keratinocyte cancers in years to come. However, minimizing UVR exposure is not without risk, and we, therefore, suggest the promotion of vitamin D supplementation in conjunction with sun protective practices to limit potential harm.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".