Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36181365›Full record

ArticleSkin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI)2022

Digital skin imaging applications, part II: a comprehensive survey of post-acquisition image utilization features and technology standards.

Mary D Sun, Jonathan Kentley, Britney W Wilson, H Peter Soyer, Clara N Curiel-Lewandrowski, Veronica M Rotemberg, Allan C Halpern, ISIC Technique Working Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Digital skin imaging applications, part II: a comprehensive survey of post-acquisition image utilization features and technology standards.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mary D SunIcahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3964-3858
Jonathan KentleyDermatology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering, New York, New York, USA.
Britney W WilsonDermatology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering, New York, New York, USA.
H Peter SoyerDermatology Research Centre, Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Clara N Curiel-LewandrowskiDivision of Dermatology, University of Arizona Skin College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Veronica M RotembergDermatology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering, New York, New York, USA.
Allan C HalpernDermatology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering, New York, New York, USA.
ISIC Technique Working Group

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the increasing ubiquity and accessibility of teledermatology applications, few studies have comprehensively surveyed their features and technical standards. Importantly, features implemented after the point of capture are often intended to augment image utilization, while technical standards affect interoperability with existing healthcare systems. We aim to comprehensively survey image utilization features and technical characteristics found within publicly discoverable digital skin imaging applications. MATERIALS AND

methodsApplications were identified and categorized as described in Part I. Included applications were then further assessed by three independent reviewers for post-imaging content, tools, and functionality. Publicly available information was used to determine the presence or absence of relevant technology standards and/or data characteristics.

resultsA total of 20 post-image acquisition features were identified across three general categories: (1) metadata attachment, (2) functional tools (i.e., those that utilized images or in-app content to perform a user-directed function), and (3) image processing. Over 80% of all applications implemented metadata features, with nearly half having metadata features only. Individual feature occurred and feature richness varied significantly by primary audience (p < 0.0001) and function (p < 0.0001). On average, each application included under three features. Less than half of all applications requested consent for user-uploaded photos and fewer than 10% provided clear data use and privacy policies.

conclusionPost-imaging functionality in skin imaging applications varies significantly by primary audience and intended function, though nearly all applications implemented metadata labeling. Technical standards are often not implemented or reported consistently. Gaps in the provision of clear consent, data privacy, and data use policies should be urgently addressed.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingImage Processing, Computer-AssistedHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesTechnologyartificial intelligenceclinical imagingdigital toolsmobile applicationsquality assuranceteledermatology

Identifiers

PMID36181365
PMCPMC9907633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.