The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Short-term Digital Surface Microscopic Monitoring of Atypical or Changing Melanocytic Lesions
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the outcome of short-term digital surface microscopic monitoring of suspicious or changing atypical melanocytic lesions. DESIGN: Digital surface microscopic (oil epiluminescence microscopy, and dermoscopy) images of clinically melanocytic lesions were taken with a color calibrated 3 CCD video instrument. In general, lesions were moderately atypical, flat or only slightly raised, without a history of change or surface microscopic evidence of melanoma, or were mildly atypical lesions with a history of change. Lesions were monitored during a 2.5- to 4.5-month period (median, 3.0 months). With the exception of overall change in pigmentation consistent with that seen in surrounding skin (solar exposure changes), any morphologic change after monitoring was considered an indication to excise. SETTING: Sydney Melanoma Unit, Sydney, Australia (a referral center). PATIENTS: A consecutive sample of 318 lesions from 245 patients (aged 4-81 years). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Specificity for the diagnosis of melanoma. RESULTS: Of the 318 lesions, 81% remained unchanged. Of the 61 lesions that showed morphologic changes, 7 (11% of changed and 2% of total lesions) were found to be early melanoma (5 in situ and 2 invasive with a Breslow thickness of 0.25 mm and 0.28 mm, respectively). None of these melanomas developed any classic surface microscopic features of melanoma and therefore could be identified only by morphologic change. The specificity for the diagnosis of melanoma by means of short-term digital monitoring was 83%. CONCLUSION: On the assumption that all melanoma will change during the monitored period, surface microscopy digital monitoring is a useful adjunct for the management of melanocytic lesions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Teledermoscopy - results of a multicentre study on 43 pigmented skin lesions
Piccolo, D., Smolle, J., Argenziano, G., Wolf, I. H., Braun, R., Cerroni, L., Ferrari, A., Hofmann-Wellenhof, R., Kenet, R. O., Magrini, F., et al. (2000) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1258/1357633001935202 · Cited by 136
Cited by
Haenssle, H. A., Fink, C., Schneiderbauer, R., Toberer, F., Buhl, T., Blum, A., Kalloo, A., Hassen, A. B. H., Thomas, L., Enk, A., et al. (2018) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy166 · Cited by 1,571
Menzies, S. W., Emery, J., Staples, M., Davies, S., McAvoy, B., Fletcher, J., Shahid, K. R., Reid, G., Avramidis, M., Ward, A. M., et al. (2009) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09374.x · Cited by 178
Self-citationAltamura, D., Avramidis, M., & Menzies, S. W. (2008) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archderm.144.4.502 · Cited by 148
Self-citationWu, X., Oliveria, S. A., Yagerman, S., Chen, L., DeFazio, J., Braun, R., & Marghoob, A. A. (2015) · JAMA Dermatology · doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.3837 · Cited by 67
(2013) · PubMed · Cited by 67
Metadata
- Authors
- Menzies, S. W., Gutenev, A., Avramidis, M., Batrac, A., & McCarthy, W. H.
- Venue
- Archives of Dermatology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2001-12-01
- Volume
- 137
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1583-9
- ISSN
- 0003-987X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2036932722
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Short-term Digital Surface Microscopic Monitoring of Atypical or Changing Melanocytic Lesions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archderm.137.12.1583
- The paper
- Menzies, S. W., Gutenev, A., Avramidis, M., Batrac, A., & McCarthy, W. H. (2001). Short-term Digital Surface Microscopic Monitoring of Atypical or Changing Melanocytic Lesions. Archives of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.137.12.1583
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.