ArticleScientific data2025
Investigating the Quality of DermaMNIST and Fitzpatrick17k Dermatological Image Datasets.
Article in Scientific data, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Skin Lesion and Cancer Detection Using Computer Vision: A Comprehensive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence Research as a Continuous Clinical Service.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2026Review
- Mask of Truth: Model Sensitivity to Unexpected Regions of Medical Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluating skin tone scales for dermatologic dataset labeling: a prospective-comparative study.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- MTAKD: multi-teacher agreement knowledge distillation for edge AI skin disease diagnosis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- MedNet: a lightweight attention-augmented CNN for medical image classification.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Investigating the Quality of DermaMNIST and Fitzpatrick17k Dermatological Image Datasets.Scientific data · 2025Article
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
Abstract
The remarkable progress of deep learning in dermatological tasks has brought us closer to achieving diagnostic accuracies comparable to those of human experts. However, while large datasets play a crucial role in the development of reliable deep neural network models, the quality of data therein and their correct usage are of paramount importance. Several factors can impact data quality, such as the presence of duplicates, data leakage across train-test partitions, mislabeled images, and the absence of a well-defined test partition. In this paper, we conduct meticulous analyses of three popular dermatological image datasets: DermaMNIST, its source HAM10000, and Fitzpatrick17k, uncovering these data quality issues, measure the effects of these problems on the benchmark results, and propose corrections to the datasets. Besides ensuring the reproducibility of our analysis, by making our analysis pipeline and the accompanying code publicly available, we aim to encourage similar explorations and to facilitate the identification and addressing of potential data quality issues in other large datasets.
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.