Cited by 36Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Managementmelanin and skin pigmentationMelanoma and MAPK Pathways

‘Mind your Moles’ study: protocol of a prospective cohort study of melanocytic naevi

Open access
Koh, Uyen, Janda, Monika, Aitken, Joanne F, Duffy, David L, Menzies, Scott, Sturm, Richard A, Schaider, Helmut, Betz-Stablein, Brigid +3 more·2018·BMJ Open

Abstract

Introduction: Having many melanocytic naevi or ‘moles’ on the skin is the strongest predictor of melanoma; thus, much can be learnt from investigating naevi in the general population. We aim to improve the understanding of the epidemiology and biology of naevi by conducting a 3-year prospective study of melanocytic naevi in adults. Methods and analysis: This is a population-based cohort study of melanocytic naevi in 200 adults aged 20–69 years recruited via the Australian electoral roll. At baseline, participants will complete a questionnaire on their sun behaviour and health and undergo a clinical examination. Three-dimensional (3D) total-body photography will be used to record the images of skin lesions. Pigmented naevi will be analysed in terms of number, diameter, colour and border irregularity using automated analysis software (excluding scalp, beneath underwear and soles of feet). All naevi ≥5 mm will be recorded using the integrated dermoscopy photographic system. A saliva sample will be obtained at baseline for genomic DNA analysis of pigmentation, naevus and melanoma-associated genes using the Illumina HumanCoreExome platform. The sun behaviour and health follow-up questionnaire, clinical examination and 3D total-body photography will be repeated every 6 months for 3 years. The first 50 participants will also undergo manual counts of naevi ≥2 mm and ≥5 mm at baseline, 6-month and 12-month follow-ups. Microbiopsy and excision of naevi of research interest is planned to commence at the 18-month time point among those who agree to donate samples for detailed histopathological and molecular assessment. Ethics and dissemination: This study was approved by the Metro South Health Human Research Ethics Committee in April 2016 (approval number: HREC/16/QPAH/125). The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025857

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • In clinical validation study, PanDerm effectively identified malignant lesions among large number of benign ones (216 malignant vs 197,716 benign) from HOP and MYM cohorts.

    “In a clinical validation study, PanDerm effectively identified malignant lesions among a large number of benign ones (216 malignant versus 197,716 benign lesions) from the high-risk melanoma of patients (HOP) study49 and mind your model (MYM) study50 cohort (Fig. 4e).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Koh, U., Janda, M., Aitken, J. F., Duffy, D. L., Menzies, S., Sturm, R. A., Schaider, H., Betz-Stablein, B., Prow, T., Soyer, H. P., & Green, A. C.
Affiliations
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Cancer and Population Studies, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Corresponding author
Koh, Uyen
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-09
Volume
8
Issue
9
Pages
e025857
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2890137987
Cited by
36
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3
FWCI
0.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UniSA Research Outputs Repository (University of South Australia) (acceptedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (acceptedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › melanin and skin pigmentation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Melanoma and MAPK Pathways
Keywords
melanocytic naevi, moles, melanoma risk, dermoscopy, pigmentation genes, saliva genotyping, melanoma prevention
MeSH terms
Health Risk Behaviors, Adult, Aged, Australia, Biopsy, Genetic Testing, Humans, Middle Aged, Nevus, Pigmented, Photography, Physical Examination, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Skin, Skin Neoplasms, Sunlight, Dermoscopy, Tumor Burden, Young Adult

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