Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40457817›Full record

ReviewJMIR dermatology2025

Artificial Intelligence in Patch Testing: Comprehensive Review of Current Applications and Future Prospects in Dermatology.

Hilary S Tang, Joseph Ebriani, Matthew J Yan, Shannon Wongvibulsin, Mehdi Farshchian

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Assessing public interest in artificial intelligence in dermatology: A Google Trends analysis.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2026
    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

5 authors.

Hilary S Tang *Division of Dermatology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0365-6606
Joseph Ebriani *Division of Dermatology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0009-0009-3559-1262
Matthew J Yan *Division of Dermatology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8301-1941
Shannon WongvibulsinDivision of Dermatology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1390-7440
Mehdi FarshchianDivision of Dermatology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5386-9629

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into patch testing for allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) holds the potential to standardize diagnoses, reduce interobserver variability, and improve overall diagnostic accuracy. However, the challenges and limitations hindering clinical implementation have not been thoroughly explored. Objective: This narrative review aims to examine the current applications of AI in patch testing, identify challenges, and propose future directions for their use in dermatology. Methods: PubMed was searched in August 2024 to identify studies involving human participants undergoing patch testing with AI used in the study. Exclusion criteria were non-English and nonoriginal research. Data were synthesized to assess study design, performance, and potential for clinical application. Results: Out of 94 reviewed articles, 10 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies employed convolutional neural networks (CNN) for image analysis, with accuracy rates ranging from 90.1% to 99.5%. Other AI models, such as gradient boosting and random forest, were used for risk prediction and biomarker discovery. Key limitations included limited sample sizes, variability in image capture protocols, and lack of standardized reporting on skin types. Conclusions: AI has significant potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy, standardize patch test interpretation, and expand access to patch testing. However, standardized imaging protocols, larger and more diverse datasets, and improved regulatory frameworks are necessary to realize the full potential of AI in patch testing.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDermatitis, Allergic ContactDermatologyPatch TestsHumansNeural Networks, ComputerAIalgorithmallergic contact dermatitisanalyticsartificial intelligencecomprehensive reviewcomprehensive reviewsdermatitisdermatologistdermatologymachine learningMLmodelpatch testingreviewskin

Identifiers

PMID40457817
PMCPMC12178223

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.