Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34550305›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2021

Lack of Transparency and Potential Bias in Artificial Intelligence Data Sets and Algorithms: A Scoping Review.

Roxana Daneshjou, Mary P Smith, Mary D Sun, Veronica Rotemberg, James Zou

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07765303 (Skin Pigment Type, Phototype and Photodamage Determination Using Image Analyses Powered by Artificial Intelligence - SPAI Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 144 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
144citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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.

NCT07765303 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Skin Pigment Type, Phototype and Photodamage Determination Using Image Analyses Powered by Artificial Intelligence - SPAI Study

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorRegion SkaneRan2025 to 2028Enrolled1,500ConditionsSkin Ageing, SkinArmsSkin imaging and skin characteristic assessment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

144 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Artificial Intelligence in Burn and Wound Care: Image Analysis, Prediction, and Clinical Integration.Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Artificial superintelligence alignment in healthcare.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Robustness of a convolutional neural network trained on dermoscopic images and challenged with close-up images.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026
    Article

84 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Roxana DaneshjouStanford Department of Dermatology, Stanford School of Medicine, Redwood City, California.
Mary P SmithDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Mary D Suncurrently a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Veronica RotembergDermatology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
James ZouDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Role of Single Cell mRNA Variation in Systems Associated Electrically Excitable CU01MH098953 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI EBERWINE, JAMES H, KIM, JUNHYONG · 2012 to 2016
$11.4M
Postgraduate Training Program in Epithelial BiologyT32AR007422 · NIAMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI PAUL KHAVARI · 1986 to 2026
$5.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIAMS NIH HHS T32 AR007422NIMH NIH HHS U01 MH098953
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceClinical artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have the potential to improve clinical care, but fair, generalizable algorithms depend on the clinical data on which they are trained and tested.

objectiveTo assess whether data sets used for training diagnostic AI algorithms addressing skin disease are adequately described and to identify potential sources of bias in these data sets. DATA SOURCES: In this scoping review, PubMed was used to search for peer-reviewed research articles published between January 1, 2015, and November 1, 2020, with the following paired search terms: deep learning and dermatology, artificial intelligence and dermatology, deep learning and dermatologist, and artificial intelligence and dermatologist. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that developed or tested an existing deep learning algorithm for triage, diagnosis, or monitoring using clinical or dermoscopic images of skin disease were selected, and the articles were independently reviewed by 2 investigators to verify that they met selection criteria. CONSENSUS PROCESS: Data set audit criteria were determined by consensus of all authors after reviewing existing literature to highlight data set transparency and sources of bias.

resultsA total of 70 unique studies were included. Among these studies, 1 065 291 images were used to develop or test AI algorithms, of which only 257 372 (24.2%) were publicly available. Only 14 studies (20.0%) included descriptions of patient ethnicity or race in at least 1 data set used. Only 7 studies (10.0%) included any information about skin tone in at least 1 data set used. Thirty-six of the 56 studies developing new AI algorithms for cutaneous malignant neoplasms (64.3%) met the gold standard criteria for disease labeling. Public data sets were cited more often than private data sets, suggesting that public data sets contribute more to new development and benchmarks. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This scoping review identified 3 issues in data sets that are used to develop and test clinical AI algorithms for skin disease that should be addressed before clinical translation: (1) sparsity of data set characterization and lack of transparency, (2) nonstandard and unverified disease labels, and (3) inability to fully assess patient diversity used for algorithm development and testing.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNeoplasmsAlgorithmsHumansTriage

Identifiers

PMID34550305
PMCPMC9379852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.