Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 420

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 87 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Evolution of Melanoma Diagnosis: 25 Years Beyond the ABCDs

Open access
Rigel, D. S., Russak, J., Friedman, R.·2010·CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

Abstract

Early detection of malignant melanoma remains the key factor in lowering mortality from this cancer. Recognizing the importance of this issue 25 years ago, our group at New York University published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians the mnemonic "ABCD" to facilitate the early diagnosis of melanoma. Studies have demonstrated the usefulness of this paradigm in enhancing early melanoma diagnosis as a part of clinical examinations, mass screenings, and public education programs. Approaches to melanoma diagnosis have dynamically evolved during the ensuing quarter century. In the 1990s, dermoscopy enabled the recognition of new subsurface features to differentiate between malignant and benign pigmented lesions. During the last decade, new computer-based technologies have improved diagnostic sensitivity and specificity and may result in optimizing lesion selection for biopsy and pathology review. Despite all of the advances in melanoma diagnosis, timely recognition, detection, and rapid treatment of melanoma remain critical. Although pathologic examination remains the gold standard for diagnosis, this cancer has the potential to be diagnosed through noninvasive approaches because of its cutaneous location. From the development of the ABCDs through current attempts that use complex computer algorithms and genetic markers, a clinician's ability to detect melanoma in its earliest form has been augmented. However, a "good clinical eye" is still fundamental to selecting the lesions for evaluation among the sea of those that are prevalent. As current approaches are refined and new techniques are developed, the improved ability to diagnose this cancer will hopefully enhance reaching the goal of reducing melanoma mortality.

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 · 10.3322/caac.20074

Cites

87 of 87 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 87 references

Cited by

See all 420

Metadata

Authors
Rigel, D. S., Russak, J., & Friedman, R.
Venue
CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-29
Volume
60
Issue
5
Pages
301-316
ISSN
0007-9235 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166664821
Cited by
420
References
87
FWCI
12.82
Type
journal article
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: The Evolution of Melanoma Diagnosis: 25 Years Beyond the ABCDs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3322/caac.20074
The paper
Rigel, D. S., Russak, J., & Friedman, R. (2010). The Evolution of Melanoma Diagnosis: 25 Years Beyond the ABCDs. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.20074

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.