↓ Skip to main content

Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review
Published in
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, July 2014
DOI 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-14-0295
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliet A. Usher-Smith, Jon Emery, Angelos P. Kassianos, Fiona M. Walter

Abstract

Melanoma incidence is rising rapidly worldwide among white skinned populations. Earlier diagnosis is the principal factor that can improve prognosis. Defining high-risk populations using risk prediction models may help targeted screening and early detection approaches. In this systematic review we searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for primary research studies reporting or validating models to predict risk of developing cutaneous melanoma. 4141 papers were identified from the literature search and six through citation searching. 25 risk models were included. Between them, the models considered 144 possible risk factors, including 18 measures of number of naevi and 26 of sun/UV exposure. Those most frequently included in final risk models were number of naevi, presence of freckles, history of sunburn, hair colour and skin colour. Despite the different factors included and different cut-offs for sensitivity and specificity, almost all models yielded sensitivities and specificities that fit along a summary ROC with AUROC of 0.755, suggesting most models had similar discrimination. Only 2 models have been validated in separate populations and both also showed good discrimination with AUROC values of 0.79 (0.70-0.86) and 0.70 (0.64-0.77). Further research should focus on validating existing models rather than developing new ones.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Master 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 38 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2015.
All research outputs
#1,871,552
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#572
of 4,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,345
of 239,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
#11
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 239,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.