ArticleJAMA dermatology2023
Automating Hair Loss Labels for Universally Scoring Alopecia From Images: Rethinking Alopecia Scores.
Article in JAMA dermatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Skin image analysis for detection and quantitative assessment of dermatitis, vitiligo and alopecia areata lesions: a systematic literature review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Revisiting Diffuse Unpatterned Alopecia: Reappraisal of a Controversial Diagnosis.Skin appendage disorders · 2026Review
- Analysis of trichoscopic images using deep neural networks for the diagnosis and activity assessment of alopecia areata - a retrospective study.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026Article
- Inflammatory Signatures and Biological Markers in Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapy for Hair Regrowth: A Comprehensive Narrative Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Frontal Fibrosing Alopecia: An Update.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2025Review
- Caffeine as an Active Ingredient in Cosmetic Preparations Against Hair Loss: A Systematic Review of Available Clinical Evidence.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Alopecia Areata: An Updated Review for 2023.Journal of cutaneous medicine and surgeryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Clinical estimation of hair density has an important role in assessing and tracking the severity and progression of alopecia, yet to the authors' knowledge, no automation currently exists for this process. While some algorithms have been developed to assess alopecia presence on a binary level, their scope has been limited by focusing on a re-creation of the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score for alopecia areata (AA). Yet hair density loss is common to all alopecia forms, and an evaluation of that loss is used in established scoring systems for androgenetic alopecia (AGA), central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), and many more. Objective: To develop and validate a new model, HairComb, to automatically compute the percentage hair loss from images regardless of alopecia subtype. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this research study to create a new algorithmic quantification system for all hair loss, computational imaging analysis and algorithm design using retrospective image data collection were performed. This was a multicenter study, where images were collected at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania (Penn), and via a Penn Dermatology web interface. Images were collected from 2015 to 2021, and they were analyzed from 2019 to 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Scoring systems correlation analysis was measured by linear and logarithmic regressions. Algorithm performance was evaluated using image segmentation accuracy, density probability regression error, and average percentage hair loss error for labeled images, and Pearson correlation for manual scores. Results: There were 404 participants aged 2 years and older that were used for designing and validating HairComb. Scoring systems correlation analysis was performed for 250 participants (70.4% female; mean age, 35.3 years): 75 AGA, 66 AA, 50 CCCA, 27 other alopecia diagnoses (frontal fibrosing alopecia, lichen planopilaris, telogen effluvium, etc), and 32 unaffected scalps without alopecia. Scoring systems showed strong correlations with underlying percentage hair loss, with coefficient of determination R2 values of 0.793 and 0.804 with respect to log of percentage hair loss. Using HairComb, 92% accuracy, 5% regression error, 7% hair loss difference, and predicted scores with errors comparable to annotators were achieved. Conclusions and Relevance: In this research study,it is shown that an algorithm quantitating percentage hair loss may be applied to all forms of alopecia. A generalizable automated assessment of hair loss would provide a way to standardize measurements of hair loss across a range of conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.