Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42808948›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of dermatology2026

Dermoscopy and the Early Melanoma Concept.

Camila Scharf, Maria Maddalena Nicoletti, Giuseppe Argenziano

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Camila ScharfDermatology Unit, University of Campania L. Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3705-7310
Maria Maddalena NicolettiDermatology Unit, University of Campania L. Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy.
Giuseppe ArgenzianoDermatology Unit, University of Campania L. Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1413-8214

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dermoscopy has enabled the detection of increasingly subtle melanocytic lesions and has contributed to a marked rise in early melanoma diagnoses. However, this shift has not been matched by a proportional reduction in mortality, raising the question of whether all lesions currently classified as early melanoma are biologically meaningful. Part of the problem lies in the definition itself. "Early melanoma" is often treated as a uniform entity, yet it likely includes lesions with widely different biological trajectories. Dermoscopy, based on the recognition of morphological patterns, does not access this biological dimension. It captures structure, not behavior and therefore operates within an inherent limitation: atypia does not necessarily equate to clinically relevant malignancy. In practice, lesions may appear suspicious yet remain unchanged over time, while others evolve. This simple observation introduces a critical dimension that static assessment cannot capture. Stability challenges the significance of atypia, while change raises concern-but neither fully resolves the underlying uncertainty. Dermoscopy, therefore, does not diagnose early melanoma in a definitive sense. It identifies lesions that warrant attention within a biologically heterogeneous spectrum. Sequential observation does not eliminate ambiguity, but places it in context, where time becomes part of the evaluation rather than an afterthought. The key issue may not be how early melanoma can be detected, but how to distinguish lesions that will evolve from those that will not.

Indexed as

DermoscopyEarly Detection of CancerMelanomaSkin NeoplasmsHumansdermoscopylongitudinal monitoringmelanocytic lesionsmelanomaoverdiagnosis

Identifiers

PMID42808948
PMCPMC13622388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.