RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparison of methods for characterizing skin pigment diversity in research cohorts
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2025.02.21.25322707
DO 10.1101/2025.02.21.25322707
A1 Lipnick, Michael S.
A1 Chen, Danni
A1 Law, Tyler
A1 Moore, Kelvin
A1 Lester, Jenna C.
A1 Monk, Ellis P.
A1 Hendrickson, Carolyn M.
A1 Chou, Yu
A1 Hughes, Caroline
A1 Behnke, Ella
A1 Elmankabadi, Seif
A1 Ortiz, Lily
A1 Negussie, Fekir
A1 Leeb, Gregory
A1 Ehie, Odinakachukwu
A1 Auchus, Isabella
A1 Igaga, Elizabeth N.
A1 Bisegerwa, Ronald
A1 Okunlola, Olubunmi
A1 Bickler, Philip
A1 Feiner, John
A1 Shmuylovich, Leonid
YR 2025
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2025/02/25/2025.02.21.25322707.abstract
AB Background Some pulse oximeters perform worse in people with darker skin, and this may be due to inadequate diversity of skin pigment in device development study cohorts. Guidance is needed to accurately and equitably characterize skin pigment to ensure diversity in research cohorts. We tested multiple methods for characterizing skin pigment to assess comparability and impact on cohort diversity.ObjectivesAssess reliability and comparability of common skin pigment measurement methodsCompare findings from different anatomical sitesDemonstrate that pigment cannot be assumed from US National Institutes for Health (NIH) race categoriesMethods We used three subjective methods (perceived Fitzpatrick pFP, Monk Skin Tone MST and Von Luschan VL) and two objective methods (Konica Minolta CM-700d spectrophotometer and Delfin Skin Color Catch DSCC colorimeter) for individual typology angle (ITA), across multiple measurement sites in adults. We calculated ΔE to estimate operator perceptibility thresholds for subjective methods and to determine reproducibility for objective methods. We used each method to categorize participants as ‘light, medium, or dark’ and compared the impact of method selection on cohort diversity.Results We studied 789 participants, with 33,856 assessments. The MST had the widest luminosity range, and VL had the least discernible adjacent categories. With ‘dark’ defined as ITA <-30°, 14% of participants were categorized ‘dark’ as compared to 26% by pFP or 16% by MST. Approximately half of the ‘dark’ cohort had an ITA <-50°. With an ITA threshold <-50°, only 7% of the cohort was categorized as ‘dark.’ When ‘Black or African American’ self-identification was used to define ‘dark’, 23% of the cohort was categorized as such. Each self-assigned NIH race category included a wide range of ITA and subjective scale categories. Both ITA and L* from the KM-700d and DSCC demonstrated strong correlation (⍴ > 0.7).Conclusion Common methods for skin pigment characterization, especially the use of race or subjective scales, have significant limitations. When applied to the same cohort, different methods yield significantly different results, and some may overestimate diversity. Previously published ITA thresholds for defining ‘dark’ skin are too light and lead to underrepresentation of people with darker skin.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://openoximetry.org/study-protocols/ Funding StatementThis study was conducted as part of the Open Oximetry Project. This study received funding from the US Food and Drug Administration, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Patrick J McGovern Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and PATH/UNITAID. The UCSF Hypoxia Research Laboratory receives funding from multiple industry sponsors to test the sponsors' devices for the purposes of product development and regulatory performance testing. No company provided any direct funding for this study, participated in study design or analysis, or was involved in analyzing data or writing the manuscript. Dr Ellis Monk's time utilized for data analysis, reviewing and editing was funded by grant number: DP2MH132941.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The University of California San Francisco IRB gave ethical approval for this study (#21-35637, #22-36553 and #23-40212).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data supporting the findings of this study are openly accessible through the Open Oximetry Data Repository. Data are de-identified and shared under the repository’s terms, ensuring adherence to data collection protocols, local IRB approvals, and other relevant regulations. Users can access the data by creating a PhysioNet account and agreeing to the repository’s terms of use. For access details, please visit the Open Oximetry website.