Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 243

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Three-Point Checklist of Dermoscopy

Soyer, H. Peter, Argenziano, Giuseppe, Zalaudek, Iris, Corona, Rosamaria, Sera, Francesco, Talamini, Renato, Barbato, Filomena, Baroni, Adone, Cicale, Lorenza, Di Stefani, Alessandro, Farro, Pietro, Rossiello, Luigi, Ruocco, Eleonora, Chimenti, Sergio·2004·Dermatology

Abstract

Background: Dermoscopy used by experts has been demonstrated to improve the diagnostic accuracy for melanoma. However, little is known about the diagnostic validity of dermoscopy when used by nonexperts. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of nonexperts using a new 3-point checklist based on a simplified dermoscopic pattern analysis. Methods: Clinical and dermoscopic images of 231 clinically equivocal and histopathologically proven pigmented skin lesions were examined by 6 nonexperts and 1 expert in dermoscopy. For each lesion the nonexperts assessed 3 dermoscopic criteria (asymmetry, atypical network and blue-white structures) constituting the 3-point method. In addition, all examiners made an overall diagnosis by using standard pattern analysis of dermoscopy. Results: Asymmetry, atypical network and blue-white structures were shown to be reproducible dermoscopic criteria, with a kappa value ranging from 0.52 to 0.55. When making the overall diagnosis, the expert had 89.6% sensitivity for malignant lesions (tested on 68 melanomas and 9 pigmented basal cell carcinomas), compared to 69.7% sensitivity achieved by the nonexperts. Remarkably, the sensitivity of the nonexperts using the 3-point checklist reached 96.3%. The specificity of the expert using overall diagnosis was 94.2% compared to 82.8 and 32.8% achieved by the nonexperts using overall diagnosis and 3-point checklist, respectively. Conclusion: The 3-point checklist is a valid and reproducible dermoscopic algorithm with high sensitivity for the diagnosis of melanoma in the hands of non-experts. Thus it may be applied as a screening procedure for the early detection of 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 · 10.1159/000075042

Cites

3 of 3 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 3 references

Cited by

See all 243

Metadata

Authors
Soyer, H. P., Argenziano, G., Zalaudek, I., Corona, R., Sera, F., Talamini, R., Barbato, F., Baroni, A., Cicale, L., Di Stefani, A., Farro, P., Rossiello, L., Ruocco, E., & Chimenti, S.
Venue
Dermatology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2004
Volume
208
Issue
1
Pages
27-31
ISSN
  • 1018-8665 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9832
OpenAlex
W1974933801
Cited by
243
References
3
FWCI
3.23
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: Three-Point Checklist of Dermoscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000075042
The paper
Soyer, H. P., Argenziano, G., Zalaudek, I., Corona, R., Sera, F., Talamini, R., Barbato, F., Baroni, A., Cicale, L., Di Stefani, A., Farro, P., Rossiello, L., Ruocco, E., & Chimenti, S. (2004). Three-Point Checklist of Dermoscopy. Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000075042

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.