A 10-Year Evaluation of Skin Tone Diversity in the <i>Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor, Canada's population encompasses diverse bio-ancestral backgrounds across a wide range of skin tones.The representation of this diversity in the Canadian dermatology literature is unknown, although prior studies reported persistent disparities in the skin of color (SoC) representation in North American, European, and Asian dermatology journals. 1This study evaluated skin tone representation in the Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery (JCMS) over a 10 year period.Articles with photographs of skin surfaces were reviewed from JCMS between 2013 and 2022.Two independent reviewers assigned Fitzpatrick skin type (FPST) to 846 photographs with a third-party adjudicator for disagreements.Photographs were categorized into non-SoC (FPST I-III) and SoC (FPST IV-VI) phototypes.Geographical distributions were grouped into continents using the corresponding authors' country of affiliation.Images were also categorized into 4 etiologies: infectious,
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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".