ArticleThe British journal of dermatology2020
Development and external validation study of a melanoma risk prediction model incorporating clinically assessed naevi and solar lentigines.
Article in The British journal of dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07765303 (Skin Pigment Type, Phototype and Photodamage Determination Using Image Analyses Powered by Artificial Intelligence - SPAI Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Skin Pigment Type, Phototype and Photodamage Determination Using Image Analyses Powered by Artificial Intelligence - SPAI Study
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Independent evaluation of melanoma polygenic risk scores in UK and Australian prospective cohorts.The British journal of dermatology · 2022Pooled it
- Genomic Risk Score for Melanoma in a Prospective Study of Older Individuals.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Pooled it
- Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review on the Heterogeneity in Model Development and Validation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Identifying high-risk melanoma patients: The importance of acquiring a detailed family history.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025Article
- The Level of Agreement between Self-Assessments and Examiner Assessments of Melanocytic Nevus Counts: Findings from an Evaluation of 4548 Double Assessments.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence and skin cancer.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Inter-Rater Agreement in Assessing Risk of Bias in Melanoma Prediction Studies Using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST): Results from a Controlled Experiment on the Effect of Specific Rater Training.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) to Evaluate Melanoma Prediction Studies.Cancers · 2022Article
- Reporting Quality of Studies Developing and Validating Melanoma Prediction Models: An Assessment Based on the TRIPOD Statement.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMelanoma risk prediction models could be useful for matching preventive interventions to patients' risk.
objectivesTo develop and validate a model for incident first-primary cutaneous melanoma using clinically assessed risk factors.
methodsWe used unconditional logistic regression with backward selection from the Australian Melanoma Family Study (461 cases and 329 controls) in which age, sex and city of recruitment were kept in each step, and we externally validated it using the Leeds Melanoma Case-Control Study (960 cases and 513 controls). Candidate predictors included clinically assessed whole-body naevi and solar lentigines, and self-assessed pigmentation phenotype, sun exposure, family history and history of keratinocyte cancer. We evaluated the predictive strength and discrimination of the model risk factors using odds per age- and sex-adjusted SD (OPERA) and the area under curve (AUC), and calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.
resultsThe final model included the number of naevi ≥ 2 mm in diameter on the whole body, solar lentigines on the upper back (a six-level scale), hair colour at age 18 years and personal history of keratinocyte cancer. Naevi was the strongest risk factor; the OPERA was 3·51 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2·71-4·54] in the Australian study and 2·56 (95% CI 2·23-2·95) in the Leeds study. The AUC was 0·79 (95% CI 0·76-0·83) in the Australian study and 0·73 (95% CI 0·70-0·75) in the Leeds study. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test P-value was 0·30 in the Australian study and < 0·001 in the Leeds study.
conclusionsThis model had good discrimination and could be used by clinicians to stratify patients by melanoma risk for the targeting of preventive interventions. What's already known about this topic? Melanoma risk prediction models may be useful in prevention by tailoring interventions to personalized risk levels. For reasons of feasibility, time and cost many melanoma prediction models use self-assessed risk factors. However, individuals tend to underestimate their naevus numbers. What does this study add? We present a melanoma risk prediction model, which includes clinically-assessed whole-body naevi and solar lentigines, and self-assessed risk factors including pigmentation phenotype and history of keratinocyte cancer. This model performs well on discrimination, the model's ability to distinguish between individuals with and without melanoma, and may assist clinicians to stratify patients by melanoma risk for targeted preventive interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.