Dermatological Implications of Artificial Intelligence, Wearable Technologies, and Digital Health Monitoring: Current Evidence, Clinical Challenges, and Future Perspectives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64784/240Keywords:
Artificial intelligence, wearable devices, digital health, dermatology, contact dermatitis, skin manifestations, biosensors, teledermatology, remote monitoring, medical technology, patient safety, adhesive-related skin injury, digital healthcare, precision medicineAbstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), wearable technologies, and digital health monitoring systems has significantly transformed modern healthcare by enabling continuous patient surveillance, personalized interventions, and improved access to medical services. Despite these advances, increasing evidence suggests that prolonged use of wearable devices may be associated with a variety of cutaneous manifestations that can affect patient comfort, treatment adherence, and overall healthcare outcomes. This review aimed to analyze the current scientific evidence regarding dermatological complications associated with wearable technologies, biosensors, adhesive monitoring systems, and AI-assisted healthcare platforms. A qualitative integrative review was conducted using the Scientific Method as a methodological framework. Scientific literature was identified through searches in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Evidence related to dermatological manifestations, immunological mechanisms, clinical implications, artificial intelligence applications, and preventive strategies was critically evaluated and synthesized. The findings indicate that allergic contact dermatitis, irritant contact dermatitis, medical adhesive-related skin injuries, erythema, pruritus, and pressure-associated lesions are the most frequently reported complications. Pathophysiological mechanisms involve adhesive exposure, epidermal barrier disruption, mechanical friction, humidity accumulation, and delayed hypersensitivity reactions. Artificial intelligence demonstrated considerable potential for lesion classification, teledermatology support, remote monitoring, and predictive risk assessment. The review concludes that while wearable technologies and AI provide substantial healthcare benefits, their successful implementation requires greater attention to dermatological safety, patient-centered device design, interdisciplinary collaboration, and preventive strategies aimed at minimizing cutaneous adverse effects.
References
[1] K. Khatsenko, C. DeKoven, and J. A. Warshaw, “Allergic contact dermatitis to components of wearable adhesive health devices,” Dermatitis, 2020.
[2] N. Cameli et al., “Allergic contact dermatitis, an important skin reaction in diabetes device users: A systematic review,” Dermatitis, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 110–115, 2022.
[3] A. Herman et al., “Allergic contact dermatitis caused by medical devices for diabetes patients: A review,” Contact Dermatitis, vol. 79, no. 6, pp. 331–335, 2018.
[4] J. Pyl et al., “Prevalence and prevention of contact dermatitis caused by FreeStyle Libre: A monocentric experience,” Diabetes Care, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 918–920, 2020.
[5] C. Svedman et al., “Continuous glucose monitoring systems give contact dermatitis in patients with diabetes,” Contact Dermatitis, 2021.
[6] U. Ahrensbøll-Friis et al., “Contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors, insulin pumps, and tapes,” Contact Dermatitis, 2021.
[7] M. Cichoń, A. Kieć-Świerczyńska, and M. Kręcisz, “Contact dermatitis to diabetes medical devices,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 24, no. 13, 2023.
[8] A. de Groot, “Allergic contact dermatitis caused by glucose sensors and insulin pumps: A full review,” Contact Dermatitis, 2024.
[9] M. F. de Faria et al., “Prevention of medical adhesive-related skin injury during patient care: A scoping review,” Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 2022.
[10] S. Fumarola et al., “Medical adhesive-related skin injury: A practical guide for assessment, prevention and management,” Journal of Wound Care, vol. 29, Suppl. 3c, pp. S1–S24, 2020.
[11] Y. Khan et al., “Skin sensing and wearable technology as tools to measure and manage atopic dermatitis,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2024.
[12] F. L. L. Ong, C. H. Loh, and C. C. Oh, “Wearable devices for photodynamic therapy: A systematic review,” JAAD International, vol. 11, pp. 59–62, 2023.
[13] D. Giansanti, “The artificial intelligence in teledermatology: A narrative review on opportunities, perspectives, and bottlenecks,” Healthcare, vol. 11, no. 10, 2023.
[14] F. Kaliyadan and T. Ramsey, “Teledermatology,” StatPearls, Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing, 2022.
[15] A. Esteva et al., “Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks,” Nature, vol. 542, pp. 115–118, 2017.
[16] H. A. Haenssle et al., “Man against machine: Diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for dermoscopic melanoma recognition in comparison to 58 dermatologists,” Annals of Oncology, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 1836–1842, 2018.
[17] P. Tschandl et al., “Human–computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition,” Nature Medicine, vol. 26, pp. 1229–1234, 2020.
[18] M. Combalia et al., “Validation of artificial intelligence prediction models for skin cancer diagnosis using dermoscopy images: The 2019 International Skin Imaging Collaboration Grand Challenge,” The Lancet Digital Health, 2022.
[19] A. Escalé-Besa et al., “The use of artificial intelligence for skin disease diagnosis in primary care: A systematic review,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2024.
[20] M. P. Salinas et al., “A systematic review and meta-analysis of artificial intelligence algorithms for skin cancer classification,” npj Digital Medicine, 2024.
