Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 319

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Standardization of terminology in dermoscopy/dermatoscopy: Results of the third consensus conference of the International Society of Dermoscopy

Open access
Kittler, Harald, Marghoob, Ashfaq A., Argenziano, Giuseppe, Carrera, Cristina, Curiel-Lewandrowski, Clara, Hofmann-Wellenhof, Rainer, Malvehy, Josep, Menzies, Scott, Puig, Susana, Rabinovitz, Harold, Stolz, Wilhelm, Saida, Toshiaki, Soyer, H. Peter, Siegel, Eliot, Stoecker, William V., Scope, Alon, Tanaka, Masaru, Thomas, Luc, Tschandl, Philipp, Zalaudek, Iris, Halpern, Allan·2016·Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
DOI 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.12.038
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Evolving dermoscopic terminology motivated us to initiate a new consensus. Objective We sought to establish a dictionary of standardized terms. Methods We reviewed the medical literature, conducted a survey, and convened a discussion among experts. Results Two competitive terminologies exist, a more metaphoric terminology that includes numerous terms and a descriptive terminology based on 5 basic terms. In a survey among members of the International Society of Dermoscopy (IDS) 23.5% (n = 201) participants preferentially use descriptive terminology, 20.1% (n = 172) use metaphoric terminology, and 484 (56.5%) use both. More participants who had been initially trained by metaphoric terminology prefer using descriptive terminology than vice versa (9.7% vs 2.6%, P < .001). Most new terms that were published since the last consensus conference in 2003 were unknown to the majority of the participants. There was uniform consensus that both terminologies are suitable, that metaphoric terms need definitions, that synonyms should be avoided, and that the creation of new metaphoric terms should be discouraged. The expert panel proposed a dictionary of standardized terms taking account of metaphoric and descriptive terms. Limitations A consensus seeks a workable compromise but does not guarantee its implementation. Conclusion The new consensus provides a revised framework of standardized terms to enhance the consistent use of dermoscopic terminology.

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 · 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.12.038

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 72 references

Cited by

See all 319

Metadata

Authors
Kittler, H., Marghoob, A. A., Argenziano, G., Carrera, C., Curiel-Lewandrowski, C., Hofmann-Wellenhof, R., Malvehy, J., Menzies, S., Puig, S., Rabinovitz, H., Stolz, W., Saida, T., Soyer, H. P., Siegel, E., Stoecker, W. V., Scope, A., Tanaka, M., Thomas, L., Tschandl, P., Zalaudek, I., & Halpern, A.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
74
Issue
6
Pages
1093-1106
ISSN
0190-9622 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jaad.2015.12.038
OpenAlex
W2281183975
Cited by
319
References
72
FWCI
14.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Standardization of terminology in dermoscopy/dermatoscopy: Results of the third consensus conference of the International Society of Dermoscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jaad.2015.12.038
The paper
Kittler, H., Marghoob, A. A., Argenziano, G., Carrera, C., Curiel-Lewandrowski, C., Hofmann-Wellenhof, R., Malvehy, J., Menzies, S., Puig, S., Rabinovitz, H., Stolz, W., Saida, T., Soyer, H. P., Siegel, E., Stoecker, W. V., Scope, A., Tanaka, M., Thomas, L., Tschandl, P., . . . Halpern, A. (2016). Standardization of terminology in dermoscopy/dermatoscopy: Results of the third consensus conference of the International Society of Dermoscopy. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2015.12.038

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.