ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2026
Bridging Accessibility and Precision: Evaluating the Reliability and Validity of a Smartphone-Based Skin Colorimeter.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate quantification of skin color is essential for dermatologic research and clinical practice. Conventional methods rely on specialized equipment, trained operators, and high costs. Smartphone-based technologies provide a promising alternative for accessible skin color assessment. Objective: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the smartphone-based skin colorimeter application, You Look Good Today (YLGTD), for facial skin color assessment compared with two validated devices, VISIA and DermaLab Combo. Methods: A total of 105 Chinese participants with healthy facial skin were enrolled. Cheek skin color measurements were obtained using YLGTD (user self-assessment and physician measurement modes), VISIA, and DermaLab Combo. Inter-rater reliability between YLGTD measurement modes was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. Criterion validity was evaluated using Pearson's correlation coefficients between YLGTD measurements and the reference devices. Results: YLGTD demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability across all parameters (ICC: 0.85-0.95). Bland-Altman analysis showed small biases between the two measurement modes for the L, a, and b (-0.05, 0.18, and -0.99, respectively). For criterion validity, YLGTD in user mode showed strong correlations with DermaLab Combo for L* (r = 0.71), individual typology angle (ITA°, r = -0.81), and chroma (C*, r = 0.78), and moderate correlations for b* (r = 0.59) and hue (h°, r = 0.57). Correlations were consistently stronger in physician mode (L*: r = 0.77; b*: r = 0.75; C*: r = 0.84; ITA°: r = -0.87). VISIA showed a stronger correlation for a* (r = 0.55) but weaker correlations for L* (r = 0.56) and ITA° (r = -0.68) compared with YLGTD. Conclusion: The smartphone-based application YLGTD demonstrated excellent reliability and acceptable validity for facial skin color assessment, particularly for pigmentation-related parameters. Its standardized measurement workflow and integrated algorithms enable consistent skin color evaluation across devices and real-world conditions, providing a convenient and cost-effective approach for objective skin color assessment.
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.