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
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.
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
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031619 · Cited by 8,733
Diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy
Kittler, H., Pehamberger, H., Wolff, K., & Binder, M. (2002) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(02)00679-4 · Cited by 1,349
Dermoscopy of pigmented skin lesions – a valuable tool for early
Argenziano, G., & Soyer, H. P. (2001) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(00)00422-8 · Cited by 391
Self-citation
Cited by
Codella, N. C. F., Gutman, D., Celebi, M. E., Helba, B., Marchetti, M. A., Dusza, S. W., Kalloo, A., Liopyris, K., Mishra, N., Kittler, H., et al. (2018) · 2018 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2018) · doi:10.1109/isbi.2018.8363547 · Cited by 2,620
Chen, J. Y., Fernandez, K., Fadadu, R. P., Reddy, R., Kim, M.-O., Tan, J., & Wei, M. L. (2025) · JAMA Dermatology · doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4382 · Cited by 43
Koelink, C. J. L., Jonkman, M. F., Van Der Meer, K., & Van Der Heide, W. K. (2014) · European Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1684/ejd.2014.2275 · Cited by 14
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.