Non-invasive skin measurement methods and diagnostics for vitiligo: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vitiligo is a multifaceted autoimmune depigmenting disorder affecting around 0.5 to 2.0% of individuals globally. Standardizing diagnosis and therapy tracking can be arduous, as numerous clinical evaluation methods are subject to interobserver variability and may not be validated. Therefore, there is a need for diagnostic tools that are objective, dependable, and preferably non-invasive. Aims: This systematic review provides a comprehensive overview of the non-invasive objective skin measurement methods that are currently used to evaluate the diagnosis, severity, and progression of vitiligo, as well as the advantages and limitations of each technique. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used for the systematic review. Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were comprehensively searched for non-invasive imaging and biophysical skin measuring methods to diagnose, evaluate the severity of, or monitor the effects of vitiligo treatment. The risk of bias in included articles was assessed using the QUADAS-2 quality assessment scale. Results: An extensive literature search resulted in 64 studies for analysis, describing eight imaging techniques (reflectance confocal microscopy, computer-aided imaging analysis, optical coherence tomography, infrared photography, third-harmonic generation microscopy, multiphoton microscopy, ultraviolet light photography, and visible light/digital photograph), and three biophysical approaches (dermoscopy, colorimetry, spectrometry) used in diagnosing and assessing vitiligo. Pertinent information about functionality, mechanisms of action, sensitivity, and specificity was obtained for all studies, and insights into the strengths and limitations of each diagnostic technique were addressed. Methodological study quality was adequate; however, statistical analysis was not achievable because of the variety of methods evaluated and the non-standardized reporting of diagnostic accuracy results. Conclusions: The results of this systematic review can enhance clinical practice and research by providing a comprehensive overview of the spectrum of non-invasive imaging and biophysical techniques in vitiligo assessment. Studies with larger sample sizes and sound methodology are required to develop verified methods for use in future practice and research. Systematic review registration: (PROSPERO) database, (CRD42023395996).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".