Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 544

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A patient-centric dataset of images and metadata for identifying melanomas using clinical context

Open access
Rotemberg, Veronica, Kurtansky, Nicholas, Betz-Stablein, Brigid, Caffery, Liam, Chousakos, Emmanouil, Codella, Noel, Combalia, Marc, Dusza, Stephen, Guitera, Pascale, Gutman, David, Halpern, Allan, Helba, Brian, Kittler, Harald, Kose, Kivanc, Langer, Steve, Lioprys, Konstantinos, Malvehy, Josep, Musthaq, Shenara, Nanda, Jabpani, Reiter, Ofer, Shih, George, Stratigos, Alexander, Tschandl, Philipp, Weber, Jochen, Soyer, H. Peter·2021·Scientific Data

Abstract

Prior skin image datasets have not addressed patient-level information obtained from multiple skin lesions from the same patient. Though artificial intelligence classification algorithms have achieved expert-level performance in controlled studies examining single images, in practice dermatologists base their judgment holistically from multiple lesions on the same patient. The 2020 SIIM-ISIC Melanoma Classification challenge dataset described herein was constructed to address this discrepancy between prior challenges and clinical practice, providing for each image in the dataset an identifier allowing lesions from the same patient to be mapped to one another. This patient-level contextual information is frequently used by clinicians to diagnose melanoma and is especially useful in ruling out false positives in patients with many atypical nevi. The dataset represents 2,056 patients (20.8% with at least one melanoma, 79.2% with zero melanomas) from three continents with an average of 16 lesions per patient, consisting of 33,126 dermoscopic images and 584 (1.8%) histopathologically confirmed melanomas compared with benign melanoma mimickers.

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 · 10.1038/s41597-021-00815-z

Cites

21 of 21 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 21 references

Cited by

See all 544

Metadata

Authors
Rotemberg, V., Kurtansky, N., Betz-Stablein, B., Caffery, L., Chousakos, E., Codella, N., Combalia, M., Dusza, S., Guitera, P., Gutman, D., Halpern, A., Helba, B., Kittler, H., Kose, K., Langer, S., Lioprys, K., Malvehy, J., Musthaq, S., Nanda, J., Reiter, O., Shih, G., Stratigos, A., Tschandl, P., Weber, J., & Soyer, H. P.
Venue
Scientific Data
Published
2021-01-28
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
34-34
ISSN
2052-4463 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3049146198
Cited by
544
References
21
Type
data paper
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: A patient-centric dataset of images and metadata for identifying melanomas using clinical context. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41597-021-00815-z
The paper
Rotemberg, V., Kurtansky, N., Betz-Stablein, B., Caffery, L., Chousakos, E., Codella, N., Combalia, M., Dusza, S., Guitera, P., Gutman, D., Halpern, A., Helba, B., Kittler, H., Kose, K., Langer, S., Lioprys, K., Malvehy, J., Musthaq, S., Nanda, J., . . . Soyer, H. P. (2021). A patient-centric dataset of images and metadata for identifying melanomas using clinical context. Scientific Data. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00815-z

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.