Validity of two subjective skin tone scales and its implications on healthcare model fairness

Skin tone assessments are critical for fairness evaluation in healthcare algorithms (e.g., pulse oximetry) but lack validation. Using prospectively collected facial images from 90 hospitalized adults at the San Francisco VA, three independent annotators rated facial regions in triplicate using Fitzpatrick (I-VI) and Monk (1-10) skin tone scales. Patients also self-identified their skin tone. Annotator confidence was recorded using 5-point Likert scales. Across 810 images in 90 patients (9 images each), within-rater agreement was high, but inter-annotator agreement was moderate to low. Annotators frequently rated patients as darker when patients self-identified as lighter, and lighter when patients self-identified as darker. In linear mixed-effects models controlling for facial region and annotator confidence, darker self-reported skin tones were associated with lighter annotator scores. These findings highlight challenges in consistent skin tone labeling and suggest that current methods for assessing representation in biosensor-based algorithm studies may be influenced by labeling bias.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2025-10-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-025-01975-7
Primary Topic
Skin Protection and Aging
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Validity of two subjective skin tone scales and its implications on healthcare model fairness

Anusha Badathala, John Boscardin, Allyson C. Cook, Odinakachukwu Ehie et al.
npj Digital Medicine
Skin Protection and Aging
article

Validity of two subjective skin tone scales and its implications on healthcare model fairness

Anusha Badathala, John Boscardin, Allyson C. Cook, Odinakachukwu Ehie, Edie Espejo, Timothy J. Heintz, Julien Cobert, Arthur W. Wallace, Hunter Mills, Jasmine Walker, Zeeshan Sheikh, Karthik Raghunathan, Cassandra Cu, Avery Wooten, Nicole E. Dundas, Bianca Alonso-Bermudez
article en

Abstract

Skin tone assessments are critical for fairness evaluation in healthcare algorithms (e.g., pulse oximetry) but lack validation. Using prospectively collected facial images from 90 hospitalized adults at the San Francisco VA, three independent annotators rated facial regions in triplicate using Fitzpatrick (I-VI) and Monk (1-10) skin tone scales. Patients also self-identified their skin tone. Annotator confidence was recorded using 5-point Likert scales. Across 810 images in 90 patients (9 images each), within-rater agreement was high, but inter-annotator agreement was moderate to low. Annotators frequently rated patients as darker when patients self-identified as lighter, and lighter when patients self-identified as darker. In linear mixed-effects models controlling for facial region and annotator confidence, darker self-reported skin tones were associated with lighter annotator scores. These findings highlight challenges in consistent skin tone labeling and suggest that current methods for assessing representation in biosensor-based algorithm studies may be influenced by labeling bias.

npj Digital MedicineVol. 8(1)
Tufts University (US), Brigham and Women's Hospital (US), San Francisco VA Medical Center (US), Berkeley College (US), Duke University (US), University of California, San Francisco (US), Duke University Hospital (US), University of San Francisco (US), University of California, Berkeley (US)
University of California, San Francisco
Openalex Percentile: Top 52%
Skin Protection and Aging
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.