ArticlePediatric surgery international2026
Semi-automated erythema quantification in infantile haemangioma receiving propranolol: a pilot feasibility study.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfantile haemangioma (IH) is the most common vascular tumour of infancy. Propranolol is first-line treatment, but response monitoring relies on subjective clinical assessment. Semi-automated photographic erythema quantification may offer a reproducible, low-cost adjunct monitoring tool.
objectivesTo develop a semi-automated Python-based erythema quantification tool for serial clinical photographs of IH, evaluate its feasibility and intra-rater reliability, and characterise the relationship between colour-based erythema change and clinician-assessed composite response.
methodsRetrospective analysis of a prospective photographic registry at a tertiary paediatric surgery centre. Forty-nine infants with IH treated with propranolol were included. Serial clinical photographs (n = 251) were analysed using a custom Python tool. The erythema index (EI = [R - G] / [R + G + B]), a formula validated for quantification of cutaneous erythema from digital photographs, was calculated from manually selected lesion regions of interest (ROI). Intra-rater reliability was assessed by re-rating 22 photographs from five patients one week apart. Absolute EI change was correlated with prospectively recorded, blinded clinician response scores (0-10).
resultsOf 251 photographs, 242 (96.4%) were analysable (mean 4.9 visits per patient, range 2-11). Intra-rater reliability was high: ICC(A,1) = 0.990(95% CI 0.97-1.00); Bland-Altman mean difference - 0.005 EI units (95% limits of agreement - 0.023 to + 0.013). Mean baseline EI was 0.122 ± 0.058 and mean final EI was 0.115 ± 0.053. Absolute EI change did not correlate with clinician response scores (Pearson r = - 0.084, 95% CI - 0.357 to 0.202, p = 0.566; Spearman r = - 0.087, p = 0.554), consistent across three sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsSemi-automated erythema quantification from clinical photographs of IH is feasible with high intra-rater reliability. These pilot findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating; the study is underpowered for definitive correlation testing, and prospective replication in an adequately powered cohort is required. In this pilot cohort, colour-based EI change alone was insufficient to track the clinician's composite response assessment under real-world uncalibrated photography conditions, consistent with the partial-biomarker nature of colour-only analysis. Prospective studies with standardised photography incorporating colorimetric calibration and composite colour-plus-area scoring are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42771183What 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.