MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387383920 · doi:10.2196/47821

Rosacea and Its Association With Malignancy: Systematic Review

2023· review· en· W4387383920 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Dermatology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRosaceaMedicineDermatologySkin cancerBasal cell carcinomaInternal medicineBreast cancerAcneCancerOncologyMalignancyBasal cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that predominantly manifests as facial flushing, irritation, and acne. Rosacea and cancer are thought to be linked by the commonality of inflammatory and immune response dysfunction. Studies that have looked into this possible association have reported mixed results. OBJECTIVE: Given the conflicting literature on this topic, our study sought to evaluate the overall association between rosacea and several cancers commonly investigated in the literature. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using the Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, and Ovid databases. Studies were screened independently for inclusion of rosacea and glioma and breast, thyroid, hepatic, or skin cancers. Using information from the articles, rosacea and each cancer were categorized as having a positive, negative, or unclear association. RESULTS: Our systematic review included 39 full-text studies that investigated the association between rosacea and various malignancies. Among the malignancies of concern, 41% (16/39) of the studies reported an association with basal cell carcinoma, with 2 cohorts revealing an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 1.50 (95% CI 1.35-1.67) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.56-0.93). In total, 33% (13/39) of the studies reported an association with squamous cell carcinoma, with 2 cohorts revealing an adjusted RR of 1.4 (95% CI 1.02-1.93) and 1.30 (95% CI 0.90-1.88). A total of 8% (3/39) of the studies reported an association between breast cancer and melanoma, with breast cancer cohorts revealing an adjusted RR of 8.453 (95% CI 1.638-43.606), 1.03 (95% CI 0.89-1.20), and 1.36 (95% CI 1.18-1.58) and melanoma cohorts revealing an adjusted RR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.95-1.27), 0.63 (95% CI 0.47-0.85), and 0.96 (95% CI 0.57-1.62). A total of 5% (2/39) of the studies reported an association among nonmelanoma skin cancers, hepatic cancer, and thyroid carcinomas, with nonmelanoma skin cancer cohorts revealing an adjusted RR of 1.36 (95% CI 1.26-1.47) and 2.66 (95% CI 1.53-4.61), hepatic cancer cohorts revealing an adjusted RR of 1.42 (95% CI 1.06-1.90) and 1.32 (95% CI 0.89-1.95), and thyroid carcinoma cohorts revealing an adjusted RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.68-1.65) and 1.59 (95% CI 1.07-2.36). Only 1 cohort reported an association with glioma, revealing an adjusted RR of 1.36 (95% CI 1.18-1.58). According to our review, patients with rosacea were statistically more likely to have nonmelanoma skin cancers, breast cancer, and glioma. Rosacea was not found to be substantially associated with melanoma. The associations between rosacea and hepatic and thyroid cancers were unclear because of conflicting results. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature shows that rosacea is significantly associated with increased odds of nonmelanoma skin cancers, glioma, and breast cancer. Rosacea does not appear to be associated with melanoma. Further studies should be conducted to clarify the association between thyroid and hepatic cancers and rosacea.

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.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.320 · 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