The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Machine learning methods applied to audit of surgical margins after curative surgery for facial (non-melanoma) skin cancer
Abstract
We aimed to build a model to predict positive margin status after curative excision of facial non-melanoma skin cancer based on known risk factors that contribute to the complexity of the case mix. A pathology output of consecutive histology reports was requested from three oral and maxillofacial units in the south east of England. The dependent variable was a deep margin with peripheral margin clearance at a 0.5 mm threshold. A total of 3354 cases were analysed. Positivity of either the peripheral or deep margin for both squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) was 15.4% at Unit 1, 21.1% at Unit 2, and 15.4% at Unit 3. Predictive models accounting for patient and tumour factors were developed using automated machine learning methods. The champion models demonstrated good discrimination for predicting margin status after excision of BCCs (AUROC = 0.67) and SCCs (AUROC = 0.71). We demonstrate that rates of positive excision margins of facial non-melanoma skin cancer (fNMSC), when adjusted by the risk prediction model, can be used to compare unit performance fairly once variations in tumour factors and patient factors are accounted for.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Machine learning models incorporating patient and tumor characteristics achieved good predictive performance with moderate accuracy for auditing surgical margins after curative excision of facial non-melanoma skin cancers.
“Machine learning models incorporating patient and tumor characteristics achieved good predictive performance with moderate accuracy, offering a method for risk-adjusted evaluation of surgical performance and enabling fair comparisons across treatment centers.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Dermatopathology: An Update and Review of the Current Literature (2026) · cites this paper as [25]
In a study analyzing 3354 cases of facial non-melanoma skin cancers after curative excision, positive margins were found in 15-21% of cases.
“Analyzing 3354 cases, the authors found positive margins in 15–21% of the cases.”
From Artificial Intelligence in Dermatopathology: An Update and Review of the Current Literature (2026) · cites this paper as [25]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 11 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Tighe, D., Tekeli, K., Gouk, T., Smith, J., Ho, M., Moody, A., Walsh, S., Provost, S., & Freitas, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Kent (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Tighe, David
- Gouk, Tara
- Smith, Jennifer
- Ho, Michael
- Moody, Andrew
- Walsh, Stephen
- Provost, Simon
- Freitas, Alex
- Venue
- British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-01
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 94-100
- ISSN
- 0266-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4310423043
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 1.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
- Keywords
- surgical margin status, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, risk prediction model, automated machine learning, histopathology
- MeSH terms
- Margins of Excision, Basal Cell Carcinoma, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell, Face, Humans, Skin Neoplasms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review