The correlation between uveal melanoma and iris nevus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To investigate the impact of iris nevus on the incidence and prognosis of uveal melanoma (UM). Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving 1128 UM cases and 4356 healthy controls. Participants were categorized based on iris nevus presence and grade: grade 0 (no iris nevus), grade 1 (single iris nevus), grade 2 (multiple iris nevi), and grade 3 (partial or complete darkening of the iris). Propensity matching score method was employed to control for age and sex differences, while the χ 2 test was used to compare the existence rate and grade of iris nevus between groups. Univariate ANOVA evaluated differences among various iris nevus grades, the Kaplan–Meier method analyzed the prognosis of patients with different iris nevus grades, and multivariate Cox proportional risk regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between clinical data and prognosis. Results A total of 5484 subjects were analyzed. UM patients exhibited a higher prevalence and grade of iris nevus (all P < 0.001) after propensity matching. Patients with iris nevus in the affected eye did not show a worse prognosis (P = 0.414). However, those with partial or complete iris darkening or multiple nevi had a poorer prognosis compared to those with a single or no iris nevus (all P < 0.05). Iris nevus presence and grade in the healthy eye had no prognostic impact (P = 0.726 and P = 0.825, respectively). The multivariate COX proportional risk model showed that tumor diameter (P < 0.001), age (P = 0.020), and grade of iris nevus in the affected eye (P = 0.009) were independent risk factors for a worse prognosis. LSD analysis revealed that patients with partial or complete darkening of the iris had larger tumor diameters than those without iris nevus (P = 0.013), single nevus (P = 0.015), and multiple nevus (P = 0.023). Discussion Our findings indicate a higher proportion and grade of iris nevus in UM patients compared to controls, and a worse prognosis for UM patients with higher-grade iris nevi in the affected eye.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".