Nationwide melanoma registry databases in real-world settings: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction A patient registry database is an important tool to address a wide range of research questions. Several countries have established nationwide melanoma registry databases. However, there is no report on summarising and comparing these databases. This scoping review aims to answer a broad question on how contemporary nationwide melanoma registry databases were conducted across different countries. Methods The proposed scoping review will follow the guidelines described by the Joanna Briggs Institute manual for evidence synthesis and results will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guideline. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov , and Google will be parallelly and independently searched by two reviewers. We will include nationwide melanoma databases with the aim of continuously and systematically collecting medical records and other relevant information about melanoma patients under routine conditions. The reference list of all included publications will also be screened for additional literature. The literature search will be limited to records after the year 2000 and in English. Two reviewers will independently review the selected literature for information extraction according to a predefined extraction guidance sheet. For databases without relevant literature introductions, we will try contacting the main researchers of the database via email for detailed information. We will provide a brief descriptive analysis of the collected data. Expected results and implications This scoping review will provide an extensive description of how contemporary nationwide melanoma databases were conducted. Findings have the potential to enhance the understanding of melanoma registry databases among researchers in related fields and promote subsequent international collaborations that aim at promoting the clinical practice of melanoma. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY ➢ This is the first scoping review protocol of summarizing contemporary nationwide melanoma databases globally. ➢ Targeted online surveys through email enable us to have a more comprehensive understanding of the latest situation of current databases. ➢ We expect to answer a broad question on how contemporary nationwide melanoma registry databases were conducted across different countries. ➢ Potentially missing relevant databases that have not been insufficiently reported is a limitation of the present scoping review.
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 | 0.186 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.023 |
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".