Machine learning methods for determining skin age: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This systematic review explores how machine learning is used in determining skin aging, aiming to evaluate accuracy, limitations, and gaps in the current literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: OVID Embase, OVID Medline, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digitial Library were searched from inception to March 16, 2024. RESULTS: A total of 1467 non-duplicate articles were screened, and 27 were ultimately included in the systematic review. The machine learning models exhibited a range of accuracies from a mean absolute error of 2.30-8.16 years. The most common approach was full facial image analysis, followed by non-image-based studies utilizing biomarkers such as the methylome and the proteome. The incorporation of dynamic facial expressions in the analysis was shown to improve the accuracy of age estimation, with a mean absolute error of 3.74. Confocal microscopy demonstrated potential for accurate skin aging estimation, with some studies achieving up to 85 % accuracy. Many studies were found with high PROBAST risk of bias scores, most commonly due to small sample sizes. CONCLUSION: Future studies should aim for greater diversity in ethnicity and variables within datasets to improve generalizability.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".