ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025
Advances in intelligent recognition and diagnosis of skin scar images: concepts, methods, challenges, and future trends.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Epigenetic orchestration of scar formation: Therapeutic potential of targeting DNA methylation and non‑coding RNAs in cutaneous fibrosis (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Skin scars, resulting from the natural healing cascade following cutaneous injury, impose enduring physiological and psychological burdens on patients. This review first summarizes the biological classification of scars, their formation mechanisms, and conventional clinical assessment techniques. We then introduce core concepts of artificial intelligence, contrasting traditional machine learning algorithms with modern deep learning architectures, and review publicly available dermatology datasets. Standardized quantitative evaluation metrics and benchmarking protocols are presented to enable fair comparisons across studies. In the Methods Review section, we employ a systematic literature search strategy. Traditional machine learning methods are classified into unsupervised and supervised approaches. We examine convolutional neural networks (CNNs) as an independent category. We also explore advanced algorithms, including multimodal fusion, attention mechanisms, and self-supervised and generative models. For each category, we outline the technical approach, emphasize performance benefits, and discuss inherent limitations. Throughout, we also highlight key challenges related to data scarcity, domain shifts, and privacy legislation, and propose recommendations to enhance robustness, generalizability, and clinical interpretability. By aligning current capabilities with unmet clinical needs, this review offers a coherent roadmap for future research and the translational deployment of intelligent scar diagnosis systems.
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.