ArticleJournal of imaging2025
Optimizing Digital Image Quality for Improved Skin Cancer Detection.
Article in Journal of imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- An AI framework for automated quality control of paraffin block and slide consistency: a clinical evaluation and human-machine comparison study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Assessing RGB Color Reliability via Simultaneous Comparison with Hyperspectral Data on PantoneJournal of imaging · 2026Article
- Development of a digital image analysis system for objective evaluation of treatment response in cellulitis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Teledermatology to Support Self-Care in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.JMIR dermatology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rising incidence of skin cancer, particularly melanoma, underscores the need for improved diagnostic tools in dermatology. Accurate imaging plays a crucial role in early detection, yet challenges related to color accuracy, image distortion, and resolution persist, leading to diagnostic errors. This study addresses these issues by evaluating color reproduction accuracy across various imaging devices and lighting conditions. Using a ColorChecker test chart, color deviations were measured through Euclidean distances (ΔE*, ΔC*), and nonlinear color differences (ΔE00, ΔC00), while the color rendering index (CRI) and television lighting consistency index (TLCI) were used to evaluate the influence of light sources on image accuracy. Significant color discrepancies were identified among mobile phones, DSLRs, and mirrorless cameras, with inadequate dermatoscope lighting systems contributing to further inaccuracies. We demonstrate practical applications, including manual camera adjustments, grayscale reference cards, post-processing techniques, and optimized lighting conditions, to improve color accuracy. This study provides applicable solutions for enhancing color accuracy in dermatological imaging, emphasizing the need for standardized calibration techniques and imaging protocols to improve diagnostic reliability, support AI-assisted skin cancer detection, and contribute to high-quality image databases for clinical and automated analysis.
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.