MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400399466 · doi:10.1186/s12885-024-12598-8

Melanoma risk, tumour stage, and melanoma-specific mortality in individuals with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4400399466 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jens Ejrnæs Tønder, Marie Louise Bønnelykke‐Behrndtz, Tinne Laurberg, Eeva‐Liisa Røssell, Martin Sollie

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSteno Diabetes Center Aarhus
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisMelanomaSurgical oncologyStage (stratigraphy)OncologyInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusMEDLINECancer researchBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cancer has become the leading diabetes-related cause of death in high-income countries, and more knowledge is needed to clarify the impact of diabetes on site-specific cancers. The purpose of this study is to assess the association between diabetes and malignant melanoma by conducting a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: Using predefined eligibility criteria, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science were systematically searched up to February 22, 2023. Exposure was defined as diabetes or type 2 diabetes and the outcomes were defined as melanoma incidence, melanoma stage or melanoma-specific mortality. The identified articles were evaluated by two independent reviewers and quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.4.1 on melanoma risk using adjusted risk estimates and on melanoma stage using a dichotomous model. RESULTS: The literature search revealed 20 studies in total eligible for inclusion, 14 for the analysis of melanoma risk, 3 for melanoma thickness and ulceration, and 4 for melanoma-specific survival. According to the meta-analyses, diabetes did not impact the risk of developing melanoma (RR:1.05, 95%CI:0.99-1.12, p = 0.10). However, type 2 diabetes was associated with more advanced melanoma stages at the time of diagnosis (Breslow-thickness > 1 mm: RR 1.35, 95%CI: 1.22-1.49, p = < 0.001) and presence of ulceration (RR 1.30, 95%CI: 1.00-1.68, p = 0.05). A meta-analysis on the association between diabetes and melanoma-specific mortality was not feasible due to diverse study designs. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis found no association between diabetes and the risk of developing melanoma, but diabetes was associated with increased tumour thickness and the presence of ulceration at the time of diagnosis. Further research is warranted to explore the association between diabetes melanoma stage and prognosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID CRD42023394187.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicMetabolism, Diabetes, and CancerFrench-language works237,207