Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41193978›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025

A methodology for developing dermatological datasets: lessons from retrospective data collection for AI-based applications.

Alma Pedro, Pamela Romero, Soledad Vidaurre, Ana M Cabanas, Atsuko Galaz, Leonel Hidalgo, Karina Carrasco, José Gerardo Tamez-Peña, Ricardo Díaz-Domínguez, Cristian Navarrete-Dechent and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Alma PedroDepartment of Computer Science, Escuela de Ingeniería, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. aapedro@uc.cl.
Pamela RomeroDepartment of Computer Science, Escuela de Ingeniería, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Soledad VidaurreFacultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Ana M CabanasDepartamento de Física, Universidad de Tarapacá, Arica, Chile.
Atsuko GalazDepartment of Computer Science, Escuela de Ingeniería, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Leonel HidalgoMelanoma and Skin Cancer Unit, Department of Dermatology, Escuela de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Karina CarrascoMelanoma and Skin Cancer Unit, Department of Dermatology, Escuela de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
José Gerardo Tamez-PeñaSchool of Medicine and Health Sciences, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México.
Ricardo Díaz-DomínguezSchool of Medicine and Health Sciences, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Zapopan, Jalisco, México.
Cristian Navarrete-DechentMelanoma and Skin Cancer Unit, Department of Dermatology, Escuela de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Domingo MeryDepartment of Computer Science, Escuela de Ingeniería, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe integration of artificial intelligence into dermatological research has underscored the need for robust and well-structured dermatological datasets. However, these datasets vary widely in their development processes, and there is currently no standard methodology to create such datasets. This work identifies three pressing needs for the building of dermatological datasets focus on skin tumor classification: the need for multimodal datasets, the definition of minimum metadata requirements, and the inclusion of underrepresented populations to address the scarcity of health data.

methodsWe propose a practical methodology to create dermatological datasets from clinical records, incorporating both images and patient metadata. The process consists of four key stages: getting the institutional review board approval and analysis of clinical information sources, data recording and structuring, processing of clinical data and images, and quality assessment. This methodology was derived from hands-on experience in building two datasets from Chilean and Mexican populations, respectively.

resultsThe methodology allows the creation of well-structured datasets by simplifying data organization and enabling replication. Each step includes practical guidance for dealing with typical challenges, such as image metadata categorization and technical validation by dermatologists and computer scientists.

conclusionOur contribution offers a reproducible, scalable, and interdisciplinary framework for creating dermatological datasets, especially useful for countries initiating dataset creation. In addition to the methodological proposal, we highlight common pitfalls and offer recommendations to mitigate them.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceDatabases, FactualData CollectionDatasets as TopicDermatologySkin NeoplasmsHumansMetadataMexicoRetrospective StudiesClinical metadataDataset methodologyDermatologySkin cancer

Identifiers

PMID41193978
PMCPMC12590726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.