Back

Pixel-Based Skin Tone Estimation on Dermoscopy: A Dual-Rater MST Benchmark and Feasibility Study

Kumarasinghe, A.; Bui, V.; Ghanbarzadeh, R.

2026-05-17 health informatics
10.64898/2026.05.13.26353004 medRxiv
Show abstract

Skin-tone labels are absent from public dermoscopy benchmarks such as the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC), making it impossible to audit whether clinical AI performs equitably across skin tones. While several recent works estimate skin tone automatically from clinical photography and selfies, we ask whether this approach is feasible on dermoscopy, the primary imaging modality of these benchmarks. To answer this, we make three main contributions. First, we release MST-Derm, a dual-rater Monk Skin Tone (MST) annotation benchmark on 500 ISIC 2018 images. Raters were given an explicit unrateable option for crops where the skin surrounding the lesion was too occluded to label confidently. We find that 60% of images were marked unrateable, yielding a 193-image consensus subset (quadratic-weighted Cohen's Kappa = 0.82). Second, we conduct a systematic feasibility study of three pixel-based MST annotation pipelines spanning the principal families in prior work: palette matching in perceptual colour space, robust colour statistics, and projection to a 1D colorimetric scalar. All three pipelines produce ordinal signal above chance (95% confidence intervals on quadratic-weighted Kappa exclude zero). However, ISIC 2018's extreme light-skin bias leaves 82% of the evaluation set at MST 2, giving a constant "always predict MST 2" baseline an accuracy floor the methods cannot overcome. To separate algorithmic signal from dataset bias, we evaluate on a class-balanced subset. The best method reaches quadratic-weighted Kappa = 0.43 against the trivial baseline of Kappa = 0.00, confirming the signal is genuine. Third, we diagnose this performance ceiling. We trace the bottleneck to two causes: dermoscopy's specialised illumination physically compresses the colour range on which lighter skin tones differ, and ISIC's dataset skew makes standard absolute-accuracy metrics uninformative. We conclude that while pixel-based colour features carry real MST signal on dermoscopy, current performance is insufficient for autonomous annotation. We release the benchmark, annotation protocol, all prediction runs, and analysis code to facilitate the development of robust skin-tone estimators, a vital prerequisite for accurately auditing fairness and mitigating bias in dermatological machine learning.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 3%
12.1%
2
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 4%
8.0%
3
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
8.0%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.0%
5
JID Innovations
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.6%
6
Scientific Data
209 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.4%
7
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 35%
3.2%
8
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.8%
50% of probability mass above
9
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.4%
10
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.2%
11
Journal of Vision
110 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
12
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.7%
13
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
14
Translational Vision Science & Technology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
15
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.5%
16
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.5%
17
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.4%
18
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
19
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 28%
1.0%
20
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Plant Science
256 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
23
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
24
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
25
Artificial Intelligence in the Life Sciences
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
26
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
27
BMC Medical Genomics
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
28
European Journal of Human Genetics
58 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
29
Neural Networks
35 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
30
British Journal of Dermatology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%