ReviewCurrent dermatology reports2024
Skin Type Diversity in Skin Lesion Datasets: A Review.
Review in Current dermatology reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Limitations of ITA for Skin Type Estimation Under Uncontrolled Imaging Conditions.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) · 2026Article
- Automated Skin Lesion and Cancer Detection Using Computer Vision: A Comprehensive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Medical support platform for melanoma analysis and detection based on federated learning.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A novel multi-agent spatiotemporal fusion framework for intelligent skin cancer diagnosis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Mobile-accessible deep learning-based self-assessment tool for measles screening in low-resource settings.BMJ digital health & AI · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence and New Technologies in Melanoma Diagnosis: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2025Review
- Translating Features to Findings: Deep Learning for Melanoma Subtype Prediction.Dermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Mitigated deployment strategy for ethical AI in clinical settings.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Investigating the Quality of DermaMNIST and Fitzpatrick17k Dermatological Image Datasets.Scientific data · 2025Article
- Advances in intelligent recognition and diagnosis of skin scar images: concepts, methods, challenges, and future trends.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in the Non-Invasive Detection of Melanoma.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Visualizing Genetics: An Investigation of Dermoscopy as a Tool for Genetic Variant Prediction in Capillary Malformations.Pediatric dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose of review: Skin type diversity in image datasets refers to the representation of various skin types. This diversity allows for the verification of comparable performance of a trained model across different skin types. A widespread problem in datasets involving human skin is the lack of verifiable diversity in skin types, making it difficult to evaluate whether the performance of the trained models generalizes across different skin types. For example, the diversity issues in skin lesion datasets, which are used to train deep learning-based models, often result in lower accuracy for darker skin types that are typically under-represented in these datasets. Under-representation in datasets results in lower performance in deep learning models for under-represented skin types. Recent findings: This issue has been discussed in previous works; however, the reporting of skin types, and inherent diversity, have not been fully assessed. Some works report skin types but do not attempt to assess the representation of each skin type in datasets. Others, focusing on skin lesions, identify the issue but do not measure skin type diversity in the datasets examined. Summary: Effort is needed to address these shortcomings and move towards facilitating verifiable diversity. Building on previous works in skin lesion datasets, this review explores the general issue of skin type diversity by investigating and evaluating skin lesion datasets specifically. The main contributions of this work are an evaluation of publicly available skin lesion datasets and their metadata to assess the frequency and completeness of reporting of skin type and an investigation into the diversity and representation of each skin type within these datasets. Supplementary Information: The online version contains material available at 10.1007/s13671-024-00440-0.
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.