trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
The mathematical probability of developing a new type of melanoma can be quantified
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
4 sources for · 0 against

Multiple validated prediction tools and nomograms confirm that the mathematical probability of developing specific melanoma outcomes, such as recurrence, metastasis, and sentinel node positivity, can be robustly quantified.

Evidence for · 4
Predictive accuracy of risk prediction models for recurrence, metastasis and survival for early-stage cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review
2023 · cited by 10
Evaluates multiple risk prediction models for survival, recurrence, and metastasis in early-stage cutaneous melanoma.
See more details
The analysis

The retrieved papers include multiple systematic reviews, external validations, and meta-analyses demonstrating that risk prediction models successfully quantify the mathematical probabilities of various melanoma-related outcomes, such as recurrence, metastasis, and sentinel node positivity.

More for · 3
Global Applicability of a Risk Prediction Tool for Sentinel Node Positivity in Patients With Primary Cutaneous Melanoma.
2025 · cited by 8
Validates a risk prediction tool that calculates individual patient probabilities of sentinel node metastasis in primary cutaneous melanoma.
Risk Prediction Models for Sentinel Node Positivity in Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
2025 · cited by 7
Provides a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk prediction models quantifying individual patient probabilities for melanoma sentinel lymph node biopsy positivity.
Development of Nomograms to Predict the Probability of Recurrence at Specific Sites in Patients with Cutaneous Melanoma.
2025 · cited by 2
Constructs nomograms to statistically predict the mathematical probability of melanoma recurrence at specific sites.
Everything we examined (12)
We also searched for evidence AGAINST this claim, not only for it.
  1. EXPRESSION PROFILING OF CLINICAL SPECIMENS SUPPORTS THE EXISTENCE OF NEURAL PROGENITOR-LIKE STEM CELLS IN BASAL BREAST CANCERSpeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  2. Mutual Risks of Cutaneous Melanoma and Specific Lymphoid Neoplasms: Second Cancer Occurrence and Survivalpeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  3. Predictive accuracy of risk prediction models for recurrence, metastasis and survival for early-stage cutaneous melanoma: a systematic reviewpeer-reviewedsupports
  4. Global Applicability of a Risk Prediction Tool for Sentinel Node Positivity in Patients With Primary Cutaneous Melanoma.peer-reviewedsupports
  5. Prognostic and therapeutic insights into MIF, DDT, and CD74 in melanomapeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  6. Risk Prediction Models for Sentinel Node Positivity in Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.peer-reviewedsupports
  7. Identification of feature genes and molecular mechanisms involved in cell communication in uveal melanoma through analysis of single‑cell sequencing datapeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  8. MelRisk: Using neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio to improve risk prediction models for metastatic cutaneous melanoma in the sentinel lymph node.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  9. Deep Learning With Optical Coherence Tomography for Melanoma Identification and Risk Predictionpeer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  10. Development of Nomograms to Predict the Probability of Recurrence at Specific Sites in Patients with Cutaneous Melanoma.peer-reviewedsupports
  11. Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Dermatologic Screening: Epidemiology and Clinical Features of Basal Cell Carcinoma, Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Seborrheic Keratosis and Actinic Keratosis.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
  12. A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies on Pancreatic Cancer Screening.peer-reviewedno side takennot shown: read and judged not to bear on this claim
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked05 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 8205 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt