Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 13, 2026

Introduction of an Integrated Pathology Image Management, Artificial Intelligence, and Reporting System
Published on: July 11, 2025
Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence Applications in Scar Assessment and Management
Hargaven Singh Gill1, Chong Sze Ling Glenda2, Gurveer Kaven Singh Gill3
1Division of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, SingHealth, Singapore.
None:
Background: Hypertrophic and keloid scars are chronic fibroproliferative disorders with major psychosocial impact. Conventional assessment tools-Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS)-are limited by subjectivity and poor reproducibility. Artificial intelligence (AI), especially convolutional neural networks (CNNs), offers opportunities for more objective scar evaluation. Objective: To systematically review AI applications in hypertrophic and keloid scar assessment, focusing on model types, imaging inputs, performance metrics, clinical endpoints, and translational readiness. Methods: A PRISMA-compliant search of online databases identified peer-reviewed AI studies on hypertrophic or keloid scar evaluation. Non-AI, non-English, and editorial articles were excluded. Two reviewers independently screened all records, with strong inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.94). Results: Among 1520 records, 24 studies met inclusion criteria. CNNs were the most common models, followed by support vector machines (SVMs) and hybrid approaches. Imaging modalities included smartphone photography, dermoscopy, thermal imaging, second-harmonic generation microscopy, and structured light. Clinical applications involved scar classification, segmentation, recurrence prediction, and treatment monitoring. Reported performance varied widely: accuracy (63%-98.5%), sensitivity (14.9%-99.7%), specificity (80%-99.9%), AUC (0.342-1.0), Dice coefficient (0.5-0.952), and r² (0.234-0.998). Larger datasets and multimodal imaging generally improved model performance. Small or low-quality datasets produced more variable results. External validation occurred in approximately 58% of studies and typically resulted in modest performance drops, indicating overfitting. Conclusions: CNN-based models using mobile or dermoscopic imaging shows promise for objective scar assessment. Key barriers to adoption include limited external validation, explainability, and regulatory integration.
Related Concept Videos
Issues And Trends In Healthcare Delivery System
Cost Containment
Payment for healthcare services has historically promoted adoption of costly and often unnecessary or inefficient...
SBAR II: Application of SBAR
SBAR Report from a Nurse to a Health Care Provider
S: "Hello, Dr. Smith. This is Jane, RN, from the Med Surg unit. I am calling to tell you about Ms. White in Room 210, who is experiencing increased pain and redness at her incision site. Her recent...

