Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 901

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Epiluminescence Microscopy for the Diagnosis of Doubtful Melanocytic Skin Lesions: Comparison of the ABCD Rule of Dermatoscopy and a New 7-Point Checklist Based on Pattern Analysis

Argenziano, Giuseppe, Fabbrocini, Gabriella, Carli, Paolo, De Giorgi, Vincenzo, Sammarco, Elena, Delfino, Mario·1998·Archives of Dermatology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the reliability of a new 7-point checklist based on simplified epiluminescence microscopy (ELM) pattern analysis with the ABCD rule of dermatoscopy and standard pattern analysis for the diagnosis of clinically doubtful melanocytic skin lesions. DESIGN: In a blind study, ELM images of 342 histologically proven melanocytic skin lesions were evaluated for the presence of 7 standard criteria that we called the "ELM 7-point checklist." For each lesion, "overall" and "ABCD scored" diagnoses were recorded. From a training set of 57 melanomas and 139 atypical nonmelanomas, odds ratios were calculated to create a simple diagnostic model based on identification of major and minor criteria for the "7-point scored" diagnosis. A test set of 60 melanomas and 86 atypical nonmelanomas was used for model validation and was then presented to 2 less experienced ELM observers, who recorded the ABCD and 7-point scored diagnoses. SETTINGS: University medical centers. PATIENTS: A sample of patients with excised melanocytic lesions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the models for diagnosing melanoma. RESULTS: From the total combined sets, the 7-point checklist gave a sensitivity of 95% and a sepcificity of 75% compared with 85% sensitivity and 66% specificity using the ABCD rule and 91% sensitivity and 90% specificity using standard pattern analysis (overall ELM diagnosis). Compared with the ABCD rule, the 7-point method allowed less experienced observers to obtain higher diagnostic accuracy values. CONCLUSIONS: The ELM 7-point checklist provides a simplification of standard pattern analysis because of the low number of features to identify and the scoring diagnostic system. As with the ABCD rule, it can be easily learned and easily applied and has proven to be reliable in diagnosing melanoma.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archderm.134.12.1563

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 901

Metadata

Authors
Argenziano, G., Fabbrocini, G., Carli, P., De Giorgi, V., Sammarco, E., & Delfino, M.
Venue
Archives of Dermatology
Published
1998-12-01
Volume
134
Issue
12
Pages
1563-70
ISSN
0003-987X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2096457735
Cited by
901
References
0
FWCI
3.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Epiluminescence Microscopy for the Diagnosis of Doubtful Melanocytic Skin Lesions: Comparison of the ABCD Rule of Dermatoscopy and a New 7-Point Checklist Based on Pattern Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archderm.134.12.1563
The paper
Argenziano, G., Fabbrocini, G., Carli, P., De Giorgi, V., Sammarco, E., & Delfino, M. (1998). Epiluminescence Microscopy for the Diagnosis of Doubtful Melanocytic Skin Lesions: Comparison of the ABCD Rule of Dermatoscopy and a New 7-Point Checklist Based on Pattern Analysis. Archives of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.134.12.1563

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.