Cited by 69Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Current State of Dermatology Mobile Applications With Artificial Intelligence Features

Open access
Wongvibulsin, Shannon, Yan, Matthew J., Pahalyants, Vartan, Murphy, William, Daneshjou, Roxana, Rotemberg, Veronica·2024·JAMA Dermatology

Abstract

Importance: With advancements in mobile technology and artificial intelligence (AI) methods, there has been a substantial surge in the availability of direct-to-consumer mobile applications (apps) claiming to aid in the assessment and management of diverse skin conditions. Despite widespread patient downloads, these apps exhibit limited evidence supporting their efficacy. Objective: To identify and characterize current English-language AI dermatology mobile apps available for download, focusing on aspects such as purpose, supporting evidence, regulatory status, clinician input, data privacy measures, and use of image data. Evidence Review: In this cross-sectional study, both Apple and Android mobile app stores were systematically searched for dermatology-related apps that use AI algorithms. Each app's purpose, target audience, evidence-based claims, algorithm details, data availability, clinician input during development, and data usage privacy policies were evaluated. Findings: A total of 909 apps were initially identified. Following the removal of 518 duplicates, 391 apps remained. Subsequent review excluded 350 apps due to nonmedical nature, non-English languages, absence of AI features, or unavailability, ultimately leaving 41 apps for detailed analysis. The findings revealed several concerning aspects of the current landscape of AI apps in dermatology. Notably, none of the apps were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and only 2 of the apps included disclaimers for the lack of regulatory approval. Overall, the study found that these apps lack supporting evidence, input from clinicians and/or dermatologists, and transparency in algorithm development, data usage, and user privacy. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study determined that although AI dermatology mobile apps hold promise for improving access to care and patient outcomes, in their current state, they may pose harm due to potential risks, lack of consistent validation, and misleading user communication. Addressing challenges in efficacy, safety, and transparency through effective regulation, validation, and standardized evaluation criteria is essential to harness the benefits of these apps while minimizing risks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.0468

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Misinformation is rampant, with significant bias, inconsistent validation, and inadequate privacy protection.

    “Misinformation is also rampant, with significant bias, inconsistent validation, and inadequate privacy protection (Wongvibulsin et al, 2024).”

    From Artificial intelligence–enabled precision medicine for inflammatory skin diseases (2026) · cites this paper as Wongvibulsin et al, 2024

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wongvibulsin, S., Yan, M. J., Pahalyants, V., Murphy, W., Daneshjou, R., & Rotemberg, V.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Venue
JAMA Dermatology
Published
2024-06-01
Volume
160
Issue
6
Pages
646
ISSN
2168-6068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392543081
Cited by
69
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 7
FWCI
6.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
mobile health apps, artificial intelligence, skin diseases, regulatory approval, FDA, evidence-based claims, algorithmic transparency, data privacy, image data, app store search
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dermatology, Humans, Skin Diseases, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review