English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We investigated the nosographic and diagnostic probabilities and likelihood ratios of dermatoscopy in order to evaluate the method's role in decision-making regarding melanoma. Clinical slides and dermatoscopic photos were obtained from 232 patients referred for dermatoscopy. Four dermatoscopy "experts" and 5 "non-experts" assessed the slides. Diagnoses were compared with histopathology. Sensitivity of the clinical assessments was 0.78 vs. 0.69 ("experts" vs. "non-experts"), sensitivity of dermatoscopy assessment was 0.83 vs. 0.69 (p = 0.04). The expert group demonstrated increased specificity (from 0.89 to 0.94) when applying dermatoscopy compared with clinical assessment alone (p=0.03). Positive likelihood ratios were doubled in the "expert group" and the negative likelihood ratios improved 25% with dermatoscopy compared with clinical assessment.

Clinical and Dermatoscopic Diagnosis of Malignant Melanoma: Assessed by Expert and Non-expert Groups