Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34851366›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2022

Checklist for Evaluation of Image-Based Artificial Intelligence Reports in Dermatology: CLEAR Derm Consensus Guidelines From the International Skin Imaging Collaboration Artificial Intelligence Working Group.

Roxana Daneshjou, Catarina Barata, Brigid Betz-Stablein, M Emre Celebi, Noel Codella, Marc Combalia, Pascale Guitera, David Gutman, Allan Halpern, Brian Helba and 9 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2022. 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 77 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Overdiagnosis of Melanoma In Situ.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. AI-assisted basal cell carcinoma diagnosis with LC-OCT: A multicentric retrospective study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Assessing public interest in artificial intelligence in dermatology: A Google Trends analysis.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2026
    Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Roxana DaneshjouStanford Department of Dermatology, Stanford School of Medicine, Redwood City, California.
Catarina BarataInstitute for Systems and Robotics, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisboa, Portugal.
Brigid Betz-StableinThe University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia.
M Emre CelebiDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Central Arkansas, Conway.
Noel CodellaMicrosoft, Seattle, Washington.
Marc CombaliaMelanoma Unit, Dermatology Department, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain.
Pascale GuiteraMelanoma Institute Australia, the University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia.
David GutmanDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Allan HalpernDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Brian HelbaKitware, Inc, Clifton Park, New York.
Harald KittlerDepartment of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Kivanc KoseDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Konstantinos LiopyrisUniversity of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Josep MalvehyMelanoma Unit, Dermatology Department, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain.
Han Seung SeogDepartment of Dermatology, I Dermatology Clinic, Seoul, Korea.
H Peter SoyerThe University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia.
Eric R TkaczykDermatology Service and Research Service, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Nashville.
Philipp TschandlDepartment of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Veronica RotembergDermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Postgraduate Training Program in Epithelial BiologyT32AR007422 · NIAMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI PAUL KHAVARI · 1986 to 2026
$5.0M
GVHD quantitative assessment in skin of Veterans post-HCTIK2CX001785 · VA · VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION · PI TKACZYK, ERIC R · 2019 to 2024
–
CSRD VA IK2 CX001785NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIAMS NIH HHS T32 AR007422
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) is accelerating in all aspects of medicine and has the potential to transform clinical care and dermatology workflows. However, to develop image-based algorithms for dermatology applications, comprehensive criteria establishing development and performance evaluation standards are required to ensure product fairness, reliability, and safety.

objectiveTo consolidate limited existing literature with expert opinion to guide developers and reviewers of dermatology AI. EVIDENCE REVIEW: In this consensus statement, the 19 members of the International Skin Imaging Collaboration AI working group volunteered to provide a consensus statement. A systematic PubMed search was performed of English-language articles published between December 1, 2008, and August 24, 2021, for "artificial intelligence" and "reporting guidelines," as well as other pertinent studies identified by the expert panel. Factors that were viewed as critical to AI development and performance evaluation were included and underwent 2 rounds of electronic discussion to achieve consensus.

findingsA checklist of items was developed that outlines best practices of image-based AI development and assessment in dermatology. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinically effective AI needs to be fair, reliable, and safe; this checklist of best practices will help both developers and reviewers achieve this goal.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDermatologyChecklistConsensusHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID34851366
PMCPMC9845064

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.