Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40677730›Full record

ArticleJAAD international2025

Validation of risk prediction models for sentinel lymph node metastasis in melanoma in a high UV index region.

Sheyda Mesgarzadeh, Rosemond S Amamoo, Geethika Ameneni, Amanda H Gong, Oluwayemisi O Ayoade, Delaney B Stratton, Emile Latour, Wesley Yu, Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski, Ivo Abraham and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAAD international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sheyda MesgarzadehUniversity of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson, Tucson, Arizona.
Rosemond S AmamooUniversity of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, Tucson, Arizona.
Geethika AmeneniUniversity of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson, Tucson, Arizona.
Amanda H GongUniversity of Arizona College of Medicine Tucson, Tucson, Arizona.
Oluwayemisi O AyoadeUniversity of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, Tucson, Arizona.
Delaney B StrattonDivision of Dermatology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Emile LatourBiostatistics Shared Resource, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Wesley YuDepartment of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Clara Curiel-LewandrowskiDivision of Dermatology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Ivo AbrahamCenter for Health Outcomes and Pharmacoeconomic Research, R. Ken Coit College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
Mohammad FazelDivision of Dermatology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.

Funding

SHORT-TERM TRAINING STUDENTS IN HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SCHOT35HL007479 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI GEOFFREY C GURTNER, JAMES Kuang-Jan LIAO · 1985 to 2026
$4.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS T35 HL007479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Risk prediction models may refine individualized selection for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in melanoma. Objective: To evaluate the statistical accuracy and clinical utility of nomograms by the Melanoma Institute of Australia (MIA), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), and University of Colorado in a Southern Arizona population. Methods: In this prognostic validation, statistical accuracy was assessed through discrimination, measured with receiver operating characteristic curves and calibration plots. Clinical utility was evaluated via decision curve analysis to determine the net benefit and number of net avoidable interventions achieved with nomogram use. Results: Among 712 melanoma cases included, model discrimination was highest for the MIA nomogram (C-statistic = 0.753; 95% confidence interval = 0.694-0.812), followed by MSKCC (0.729[0.671-0.787]), and University of Colorado (0.601[0.405-0.793]). The MIA and MSKCC nomograms were well-calibrated across clinically relevant risk thresholds. All nomograms achieved a net benefit and net reduction in avoidable SLNBs for risk thresholds ≥5%. There was minimal to no reduction in unnecessary interventions at age extremes (<50 and ≥ 80 years old) for specific risk strata and nomograms. Limitations: This a 5-year retrospective study. Conclusions: These nomograms can be used to support SLNB decision-making in this population but necessitate caution in patients at age extremes when used to reduce avoidable interventions.

Indexed as

melanomametastasisnomogramrisk calculatorsrisk factorsrisk predictionsentinel lymph nodesentinel lymph node biopsy

Identifiers

PMID40677730
PMCPMC12269628

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.