Measuring Skin as Data: Notes from a Dermatologist
Is there really a way to measure skin objectively? This is the question a board-certified dermatologist carried from his residency — and the question that eventually became InSkin Lab and INSKINVIEW.
If you've ever had a treatment done, you've probably asked yourself the same thing afterward: "Did that actually work?" In the mirror your skin looks better on some days, and unchanged on others. I've worked as a dermatologist for a long time, and even I struggled with this problem of "feeling" for years. InSkin Lab began with exactly that question.
My first paper was about acne and pores
I'm a board-certified dermatologist who has served as a university hospital faculty member and as Medical Director at a medical AI company, and I still see patients in the clinic today. During my residency, I had the chance to work with microneedle RF — at the time a brand-new device, and an earlier generation of the machines many clinics use now.
A study evaluating this device's effect on acne and pores became my first first-author SCIE paper. Because it was one of the early studies on the technology, it has since been cited more than 160 times. I'm grateful for that. But the whole time I was writing it, a different question wouldn't leave my mind.
The "objective" measurements weren't objective either
To verify the results, I used every method I could. A specialist's overall visual grading (IGA), plus surface roughness meters, water-loss (TEWL) meters, high-resolution ultrasound, confocal reflectance microscopy, sebum meters. What I saw looked good, the device readings looked good, and the paper came together nicely.
The trouble came afterward. That expert grading is subjective goes without saying — EASI for eczema and PASI for psoriasis all involve the rater's judgment. What surprised me more was that the "objective" device measurements weren't so objective either.
- Readings shifted depending on where the probe was placed
- Room temperature and humidity affected the values
- Calibration state changed the results
- Devices from different companies couldn't be reconciled with one another
Why is there no "standard" for skin?
Compare this to internal medicine and it starts to look strange. Blood pressure and blood glucose readings are compatible no matter whose device you use. That's why you can switch clinics, or measure at home, and still speak the same language. Skin isn't like that. A pigmentation reading from Device A and one from Device B become two datasets you can't combine — which makes them hard to compare in the first place.
This question followed me from my residency onward: does a way to measure skin objectively actually exist?
That question is where InSkin Lab began
INSKINVIEW analyzes your skin from a single selfie across six axes — Wrinkle, Pigmentation, Sagging, Texture, Volume, and Redness — and helps you track change before and after a procedure on the same scale. It isn't meant to replace a device or a consultation. It's an attempt to place the scattered "feeling" of skin onto one consistent ruler. If you'd rather look at your own skin through data than a gut feeling, INSKINVIEW is a place to draw that first baseline.