Back

Are you represented? Subjective vs objective skin color determination for healthcare and research purposes.

Setchfield, K. J.; Kuppur Narayana Swamy, S. K.; Setchfield, E. J.; Morgan, S. P.; Somekh, M. G.; Wright, A. J.

2026-04-14 scientific communication and education
10.64898/2026.04.13.718177 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Despite questionable accuracy, subjective methods to categorize skin color are heavily relied upon in research and medicine. Objective skin color determination is expensive requiring specialized instrumentation and interpretation. We compare three subjective approaches, i) Fitzpatrick Skin Type Scale (FST), ii) Pantone SkinTone Guide (PST) and, iii) Monk Skin Tone Scale (MST), with objectively measured skin color from a spectrophotometer in 87 volunteers to understand the limitations of each method. In agreement with others, we show that the popular FST questionnaire correlates poorly with the objective approach. However, PST color swatches provide good correlation with spectrophotometer measurements. PST consists of 110+ swatches that are inexpensive and easy to use, however, similar to other reports, the volunteers found the number of swatches overwhelming and/or excessive. We found that the recently introduced MST is not representative of reality with only 3 of the 10 color groups representing our volunteers and published populations of volunteers. In future, we propose using 9 color swatches to split the spectrum of human skin color into 10 groupings (Nottingham Skin Categories - NSC) that are representative of the global population. This new approach would be easy to implement and inexpensive in research, healthcare and cosmetics settings, and maps directly to objective, quantitative, measures taken with a spectrophotometer. For the testing and development of new optical devices, NSC would provide increased comparability between studies and ensure studies are representative of local/global populations. In the clinic NSC would be useful for dermatology, photodynamic therapy and dosage assessment for topical medicine, for example.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
41.4%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 15%
6.6%
3
Journal of Biomedical Optics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
4
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.6%
5
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.2%
6
Journal of Biophotonics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
7
Translational Vision Science & Technology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
8
Behavior Research Methods
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
9
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.8%
10
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.7%
11
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Biomedical Optics Express
84 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
13
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.6%
14
Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
15
FASEB BioAdvances
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
16
FEBS Open Bio
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
17
British Journal of Ophthalmology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
18
Molecular Pharmaceutics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
19
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.4%
20
Journal of Investigative Dermatology
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
21
ACS Omega
90 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
22
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 60%
0.7%
23
Acta Crystallographica Section D Structural Biology
54 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
24
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
25
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%