Skip to content
AetherHeal

Dermatoscan AI

Pre-launch validation

Dermatoscan AI · Cosmetic pigment-treatment reference

Compare cosmetic pigment images.
Keep their context.

We are studying a physician-reference workflow for cosmetic pigment treatment. Images, capture conditions, and observations for review stay together, starting with the same site and a clear point in time.

Discuss image-comparison research

The work inside the visit

  1. Open the patient context
  2. Structure the observations
  3. Physician review

Dermatoscan AI organizes skin images for physician review. Its scope is cosmetic pigment treatment.

See the image and review items
in one workspace.

This conceptual diagram shows how a site and its capture conditions are matched before review. Geometric shapes illustrate the arrangement of images and reference items.

Dermatoscan AIConceptual UI · synthetic data · no real actions

Same site + capture context

Matching frames explain the comparison method. They show no treatment result.

Human review remains open

Image context aligned
Patient, site, and capture time appear with the image in the review workspace.
Observations for review
Image features are organized as reference information for the physician to examine.
Review history
Acceptance, edits, and rejection remain visible when the physician returns to the comparison.

Research questions to develop together

Align the conditions for comparison.
Keep the review process visible.

These are proposed questions for cosmetic pigment-image comparison. Initial discussions use synthetic material and screen layouts; data use and evaluation scope are agreed separately with partners.

01

Research question

Can images of the same site be compared on a consistent basis?

Proposed review method

Record site, time and capture conditions together, then examine how missing comparison context should be shown.

02

Research question

How do physicians understand the reference items?

Proposed review method

Have reviewers read the same example and identify ambiguous wording and additional context they need.

03

Research question

Can the previous review be found at the next visit?

Proposed review method

Open the prior image, observations and edit history together to examine how the next comparison begins.

Clinical partner
Define the capture context and physician-reference items needed for cosmetic pigment-image comparison.
AetherHeal
Specify the workspace, comparison history and development work that follows review feedback.
Joint outputs
Document capture and record fields, an example review procedure and the criteria for the next evaluation.

Input → preparation → human review

Carry one image forward
to the next comparison.

The proposed workflow is limited to cosmetic pigment-treatment reference. Images sit under a patient and capture time; a physician reviews the observations and the basis for the next comparison.

Dermatoscan AI is a clinical reference tool for physicians. The physician reviews what appears on screen and makes the final judgment.

  1. 01

    Open the patient context

    Confirm the patient and the point in care before reviewing the image.

  2. 02

    Attach the skin image

    Select the image and place it inside the same visit context.

  3. 03

    Record capture context

    Keep the site, time, and other comparison conditions beside the image.

  4. 04

    Structure the observations

    Lay out the image features that the physician may want to examine again.

  5. Physician review

    The physician accepts, edits, or rejects the reference items.

  6. 06

    Preserve the next baseline

    Carry the reviewed image and its status into the patient's next comparison.

The physician chooses what to review
and what the evidence means.

Patient and capture context, reference observations, and physician review status remain distinct so the line of responsibility stays clear.

What it does

Dermatoscan AI is limited to image context and physician-reference work for cosmetic pigment treatment.

Aligns image context.
Patient, site, and capture time establish a consistent starting point for comparison.
Structures observations.
Image features are organized as reference items for the physician to examine again.
Carries review status forward.
Acceptance, edits, and rejection remain available in the next image comparison.
Scope and responsibility

Reference items support physician review within cosmetic pigment treatment. Physicians choose procedures and make the final judgment.

Physicians interpret the reference items.
On-screen observations are reference information the physician reviews within cosmetic pigment treatment.
Physicians choose procedures.
The physician chooses the procedure, signs the record, and explains the decision to the patient.
See the current product evidence.
The dated public evidence record shows the product stage and the scope that has been confirmed.
Authority
Image selection
Clinical staff confirm the patient, site, and capture time to be reviewed.
Clinical review
The physician accepts, edits, or rejects the reference items.
Final judgment
Procedure selection, patient explanation and the clinical record remain the physician’s responsibility.
Data
Patient and time
Each image is reviewed under a patient, anatomical site, and capture time.
Reference items
Image observations distinguish what awaits review from what a physician has confirmed.
Comparison history
Reviewed images and their status carry forward as context for the next visit.

Evidence today · as of 2026-08-11

Current validation.
A starting point for the next study.

See the dated evidence record
Evidence in the current release
Reference workflow scope as of 2026.09.13
Evidence from the field
No evidence of outside results
Boundary of the claim
We describe only the reference workflow a physician reviews and the current validation scope.

Next step

Study cosmetic pigment-image
comparison with us.

Describe your current image-comparison workflow and physician-review criteria. The first discussion aligns the research questions and partner roles before defining data use and system connections.

Discuss image-comparison research

Do not include patient-identifying information or clinical details in your inquiry.