Guide to the Fitzpatrick Scale and the Alternatives

Accurately classifying a patient’s skin type and tone is crucial for safe and effective treatments. Skin type influences how skin reacts to laser energies, injectables, and skincare actives. The Fitzpatrick Skin Phototype Scale (FST) has long been the standard for gauging UV sensitivity and guiding treatment settings. However, with increasingly diverse patient populations and advanced technologies, dermatology has begun exploring more nuanced classification systems. We review the Fitzpatrick scale’s validation, strengths, and criticisms, then examines alternative skin classification systems – from the Goldman World Scale to objective measures like the eumelanin index and Individual Typology Angle (ITA) – including newer AI/imaging-based tools and compare these systems in terms of clinical utility for lasers, injectables, and skincare, their accuracy in assessing pigmentation and UV sensitivity, their inclusivity, and ease of use.

The Fitzpatrick Skin Phototype Scale (FST)

The Fitzpatrick scale (developed by Thomas B. Fitzpatrick in 1975) classifies skin into six phototypes (I to VI) based on baseline skin colour and self-reported response to sun exposure (tendency to burn versus tan). It was initially created to determine safe UVA doses for psoriasis patients with white skin. Early on, Fitzpatrick found hair or eye colour unreliable, so the classification pivoted to sunburn/tanning history. Phototypes I–IV covered fair to olive skin; types V (brown) and VI (dark brown/black) were later added based on skin colour rather than the patient’s reaction to the sun. This scale correlates loosely with measured minimal erythema dose – fair skin (Type I) has the lowest MED (burns easily), and dark skin (Type VI) has the highest MED (rarely burns). In dermatology, Fitzpatrick typing became a “golden” standard, widely adopted to predict UV sensitivity and to set parameters for phototherapy, laser resurfacing, and other interventions.

The Fitzpatrick scale’s main advantages are its simplicity and clinical familiarity. It involves a brief questionnaire or visual assessment, making it quick to implement. It provides practical guidance – for example, Type I/II patients (fair skin) are known to need gentler laser settings and diligent sun protection, whereas Type V/VI patients can tolerate more sun but risk post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation with aggressive lasers. Indeed, Fitzpatrick typing is routinely used to choose laser wavelengths and energies that avoid burns or pigmentary complications based on a patient’s sun-reactivity. The scale has some scientific validation in lighter skin: it reasonably stratifies UV burn risk for phototypes I–III and correlates with intrinsic SPF differences (e.g. dark skin filtering ~5× more UV than light skin). Its widespread use has standardised communication about skin sensitivity and helped tailor photoprotection advice (higher SPF and UV avoidance for low phototypes, etc.). In summary, the Fitzpatrick scale is practical, quick, and historically “tried-and-true” for basic prototyping.

Despite its ubiquity, the Fitzpatrick scale has well-documented weaknesses, especially regarding inclusivity and reliability across diverse skin tones. Notably, FST conflates skin colour with ethnicity and assumes uniform responses within broad categories. It was originally developed with an entirely White patient base and later expanded, but still only offers two categories for all olive to dark skin types (III–VI). Dermatologists have observed that this oversimplification fails to capture the wide range of pigmentation and reactivity in people of colour. Dr. Susan Taylor describes the scale as “outdated and inaccurate for people of non-European descent”, noting it “states there are just two skin types (III and IV) for people of olive and darker skin tones, without accounting for their many different shades and responses to UV”. In practice, individuals with richly pigmented skin (e.g. those of African, South Asian, or Latin American heritage) report that their burning/tanning behaviour doesn’t always match the FST description. For example, the scale assumes Type V–VI skin “never burns,” yet sunburn does occur in darker skin (albeit less frequently), and dangerous cumulative UV exposure can be underestimated. A 2021 review bluntly concluded FST “is neither correct nor adequate to reflect sunburn and tanning risk for skin of colour”. Moreover, using FST as a proxy for skin cancer risk can give a false sense of security in patients of colour – while their melanoma risk is lower, it is not zero, and often their cancers present at later stages.

Another concern is the subjective nature of Fitzpatrick typing. It relies on self-report or clinician judgment of past sun reactions, which can be unreliable. Studies find that individuals often misjudge their skin type or only consider tanning OR burning (not both), leading to inconsistent self-classification. One analysis noted “flaws in the self-report” because people have difficulty recalling or generalising their sun response. Even trained observers may disagree on a patient’s type, especially for intermediate tones. This subjectivity can impact treatment – a provider might under-treat an actually sensitive, darker-skinned patient who was misclassified as Type V/VI. Additionally, FST does not account for post-inflammatory responses (like hyperpigmentation or keloid scarring propensity) or cosmetic history (e.g. use of skin lighteners or tanning beds), which are highly relevant in aesthetic dermatology. As a result, Fitzpatrick’s limited scope can lead to suboptimal treatment planning in skin of colour, as misclassification may cause practitioners to overlook risks of hyperpigmentation or to use settings that are too conservative or too aggressive. Experts have called the scale “Anglo-Irish centric” or “simply irrelevant” when applied globally, urging the development of more inclusive, data-driven skin typing methods.

Recognising FST’s shortcomings, researchers and clinicians have proposed various alternative skin classification systems. Some add factors like ancestry or hyperpigmentation tendency; others use objective colour measurements or advanced imaging.

Goldman World Classification Scale

The Goldman World Classification of Skin Type (proposed by Dr. William Goldman in 2002) was designed to incorporate racial ancestry and pigmentation tendencies into skin typing. This scale categorises skin into five broad “ethnic/racial” types, considering the patient’s ancestry, Fitzpatrick phototype, and propensity for post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH). In essence, Goldman’s system adds a pigmentation-risk dimension to Fitzpatrick: it evaluates how likely a person is to burn or tan and whether they commonly develop dark spots after inflammation, with typical patterns observed in different heritage groups. For example, a person of African ancestry might be noted as high PIH-risk despite rarely burning, whereas someone of Northern European ancestry might burn easily but have low PIH risk. By including these factors, the Goldman scale aims to guide cosmetic procedures more safely across all skin tones. In aesthetic medicine, this has practical utility for predicting laser or peel outcomes – a patient classified under a group prone to PIH would warrant gentler settings and pretreatment with bleaching agents, even if their Fitzpatrick type alone might suggest they tolerate aggressive treatment. The strength of the Goldman World scale is its greater inclusivity and predictive power for pigmentary complications: it acknowledges that “skin of colour” is not monolithic and that ancestry (e.g. Asian, Latinx, Middle Eastern, etc.) influences reactivity beyond what Fitzpatrick captures. However, the scale still relies on patient history and clinician assessment (e.g. of ancestry and prior hyperpigmentation), so it remains partly subjective. It also clusters people into five racial categories, which, while broader than Fitzpatrick’s colour focus, may not capture intragroup variation perfectly. In practice, the Goldman scale is a helpful framework, especially for providers treating diverse populations, but it has not completely replaced Fitzpatrick, in part due to familiarity and the effort required to evaluate extra factors for every patient.

Individual Typology Angle (ITA)

The Individual Typology Angle (ITA) is an objective skin colour classification introduced by Chardon et al. in 1991 to quantify constitutive skin pigmentation. Unlike Fitzpatrick’s sun-response approach, ITA is derived from measurements in the CIELab color space: using a tristimulus colorimeter, one measures the skin’s L* (lightness) and b* (yellow/blue) values and plugs them into the formula: ITA° = arctan((L – 50)/ b) × (180/π). This computed angle correlates inversely with skin melanin content – higher ITA means lighter skin, while lower (or negative) ITA indicates darker skin. Chardon’s team defined six ITA-based skin colour categories: “very light” (ITA >55°), “light”, “intermediate”, “tan”, “brown” and “dark” (with thresholds at 41°, 28°, 10°, and –30°). These categories were later expanded after a 2013 study included more diverse subjects and realised very dark tones needed an additional category (ITA < –30°). ITA is fundamentally different from FST – it measures actual skin colour objectively rather than relying on reported sun reaction. This makes ITA highly reproducible and precise for assessing pigmentation. Indeed, ITA has a roughly linear relationship with biochemical melanin content in skin and has become a common metric in dermatology research to quantify “skin lightness” or track pigment changes.

ITA can be useful for fine-tuning treatments and product selection. For example, a clinician could use a handheld colourimeter to get a patient’s ITA before and after a series of chemical peels to quantitatively monitor improvement in hyperpigmentation. Unlike subjective tone descriptions (fair, medium, etc.), ITA gives a numeric baseline that can detect subtle changes. It can also help in laser settings – e.g. two patients might both be Fitzpatrick IV, but if one has an ITA on the lighter end (say 30°) and another much lower (say 5°, indicating significantly darker skin), the practitioner might err on the side of caution with the latter.

Because ITA is instrument-based, it avoids observer bias and resolves the problem of limited “bins” for dark skin. A study by Del Bino et al. confirmed ITA values correlate well with measured epidermal melanin across a range of ethnicities. However, ITA is not a perfect substitute for phototype: it does not measure UV sensitivity or tanning ability, only static colour. Two people with the same ITA could have different burn risks depending on their melanocyte responsiveness or genetic factors. Furthermore, the original ITA categories were devised mostly from light-skinned individuals, and even with later expansions, some argue the cut-offs could be refined with more data from non-Europeans. Importantly, “ITA is not skin colour” in the perceptual sense – it ignores redness (a* axis) and only partially captures the visual nuances of skin tone. Still, ITA provides a valuable objective scale for pigmentation that can complement traditional typing. Its use in clinics is growing as devices become more available, though currently it’s more common in research settings than everyday practice due to the need for a dedicated colourimeter or spectrophotometer.

Eumelanin Index / Melanin Index

The eumelanin index, more commonly just called the melanin index (MI), is another objective metric used to quantify skin pigmentation. It typically refers to the output of devices like reflectance spectrophotometers or specialised probes (e.g. Mexameter) that measure how much light the skin absorbs at specific wavelengths. In practice, a melanin index is often calculated from the reflectance at a red or infrared wavelength versus a green reference (different devices use different formulas). For example, the Mexameter emits light at 660 nm and 880 nm; the ratio of absorbed light gives a melanin index number. Higher MI indicates darker skin (more melanin absorbing light). MI is essentially a direct reading of melanin content in the skin’s surface, expressed on a continuous scale (the absolute range depends on the device).

The melanin index is widely used in cosmetic science and dermatology research to assess baseline pigmentation and track changes. For instance, if a patient undergoes laser toning for melasma, a melanin index can objectively document pigment reduction in the treated patches over time. In aesthetic clinics, melanin meters have practical value in laser treatment planning. Modern laser platforms like the Palomar/Cynosure Icon include the Skintel Melanin Reader, which scans the patient’s skin and outputs a melanin index that the laser uses to suggest safe energy settings. This kind of tool quantifies how much melanin is present (which correlates with the risk of laser light absorption in skin) and helps prevent choosing settings that would burn darker skin. According to Dr. E. Victor Ross, “the Skintel reader is a better, more advanced way to look at skin typing compared to the conventional Fitzpatrick method…You can’t always accurately evaluate skin visually”. In other words, objective melanin measurement can catch nuances that the human eye might miss, especially in individuals with mixed undertones or redness that can mask true pigmentation.

The melanin index offers excellent accuracy for pigment quantification – it’s numeric and continuous, avoiding the blunt grouping of scales like Fitzpatrick. Any skin shade, from very pale to very dark, can be placed on the same numeric continuum, making it inherently inclusive. One study in African participants found a strong correlation between certain high MI values and Fitzpatrick classifications, reinforcing that MI aligns with phototype to an extent. However, MI is limited to measuring melanin; it says nothing about how that skin behaves (burning, tanning, etc.) or other risk factors. Also, lack of standardisation is a challenge: different devices have different scales (one machine’s “MI = 500” might not equal another’s). There is no universal melanin index unit, so while MI is great for relative comparisons (e.g. before vs. after on the same patient, or comparing two areas with the same device), it’s less useful as a universal classification unless a single device becomes standard. Despite this, melanin index tools have proven very useful in practice. They improve safety by adding quantitative rigour – as Dr. Jeremy Green notes, “the objectivity of the melanin reader takes the guesswork out of assessing a patient’s skin”, giving clinicians confidence from the first treatment.

Newer Inclusive Scales and AI-Based Tools

In recent years, efforts to develop more inclusive and technologically advanced skin tone scales have gained momentum. Two notable examples are the Monk Skin Tone (MST) scale and various AI-driven skin analysis tools:

Monk Skin Tone Scale (2022): Harvard professor Dr. Ellis Monk, in collaboration with Google, introduced the Monk Skin Tone scale to address representation gaps in both dermatology and imaging technology. The MST scale features 10 distinct skin tone shades, arranged from light to dark, but crucially with far more gradation in the darker end of the spectrum. In fact, whereas Fitzpatrick has 4 categories covering light tones and only 2 for brown and black skin, the Monk scale devotes 6 categories to medium and dark skin. This provides a much finer differentiation for people of colour. The Monk scale is based on visual skin tone (like a shade guide) rather than UV response – it’s essentially a colour reference chart that anyone (or any camera/algorithm) can use to label a skin tone. The motivation was inclusivity and reducing bias: by having more categories for darker skin, technologies (e.g. phone cameras, beauty apps) and clinicians can better match a person’s actual complexion rather than lumping many into “brown” or “dark”.
Originally created for improving AI fairness (e.g. in photography and search results), the Monk scale is now trickling into cosmetic dermatology practice as well. Some aesthetic providers have begun using it alongside Fitzpatrick. The Monk scale not only provides a better representation of true skin colouration, but it also makes skin analysis easier for those with darker skin. By identifying a patient’s tone on a 10-point scale, practitioners can more precisely tailor laser settings or skincare. For example, two patients might both be Fitzpatrick IV, but one could be MST 5 versus MST 8 – indicating a meaningful difference in depth of colour. That finer granularity can translate to choosing one laser wavelength or fluence over another to minimise risks. Using an inclusive scale with more categories like Monk gives a greater chance of choosing the correct wavelength and avoiding complications like hyperpigmentation.
The Monk scale is easy to use (visual matching) and culturally sensitive (it was developed with diverse input). Its limitation is that, like a paint swatch, it doesn’t inherently convey anything about sun sensitivity or skin biology – it would ideally be used in combination with a phototype assessment. Nonetheless, MST has been well-received as a step toward equity in skin classification, and even consumer products (makeup shade ranges, etc.) have benefitted from its more representative design.
AI and Imaging-Based Classification: Artificial intelligence is increasingly applied to dermatologic assessments, including skin typing. Some AI algorithms have been trained to predict Fitzpatrick type from a photograph – for instance, research models and smartphone apps can analyze a selfie and output an estimated FST I–VI. PerfectCorp, for example, markets an AI tool that instantly identifies one’s Fitzpatrick skin type via augmented reality. Other machine learning studies have aimed to classify skin tone on a continuous scale to assist in diverse data collection. While these AI tools are promising for consistency (removing human guesswork), they are only as good as their training data – many early models performed poorly on darker skin due to underrepresentation. With improved datasets (like incorporating the Monk scale tones), AI-based classification is getting better at recognizing a wide range of skin colors fairly.
Meanwhile, advanced imaging devices in clinics provide objective analysis. The VISIA Skin Analysis system is one such tool widely used in medical spas and dermatology offices. VISIA uses multi-spectral imaging (standard, cross-polarized, and UV light) to examine the skin and then employs software (with AI) to evaluate various parameters: pigmentation distribution, UV damage, redness, pore size, wrinkles, etc. As part of its report, VISIA can output a “skin type” analysis – not just Fitzpatrick, but an overall profile of the skin’s condition and likely needs. These systems help practitioners provide a more detailed and accurate assessment of the skin, contributing to more personalised treatments. For skin tone specifically, a VISIA scan can quantify areas of hyperpigmentation and compare the patient’s complexion to age-matched norms. It’s not a classification scale per se, but a diagnostic tool that complements classification by revealing how a given skin type has weathered sun exposure.
Other alternative classification methods address specific attributes. The Taylor Hyperpigmentation Scale (2006), for example, uses 15 standardised colour cards to grade the severity of hyperpigmented lesions. It’s used to track conditions like melasma or PIH by matching lesion colour to a card shade. The Roberts Skin Type Classification (2008), developed by dermatologist Dr. Howard Roberts, is a 4-factor system that assigns scores for Fitzpatrick type, a proprietary hyperpigmentation scale, a scarring (keloid) risk scale, and the Glogau photoaging scale. The total score stratifies patients by predicted risk for cosmetic procedures (e.g. a high Roberts score might indicate a patient who is moderately pigmented, tendency to hyperpigment, and is prone to keloids – a combination needing extreme caution with lasers). Roberts’ system is comprehensive in addressing pigmentary and reactive nuances that Fitzpatrick ignores, but it’s more complex to implement routinely.

The Fitzpatrick scale has served as a foundational skin typing method in dermatology and aesthetic medicine for decades, offering a simple way to gauge UV response and guide treatments. However, its limitations in addressing the full spectrum of skin tones and reactive tendencies have spurred the development of alternative classification systems. The Goldman World Scale adds critical context of ethnicity and hyperpigmentation risk, while objective measures like the ITA and melanin index bring scientific precision to skin colour assessment. New inclusive scales (e.g. Monk Skin Tone) and AI tools reflect an industry-wide push toward greater inclusivity and accuracy in skin classification. Each system has unique advantages: some are better for predicting laser safety, others for measuring outcomes, and others for simply making sure no patient’s skin tone is overlooked.

In aesthetic medicine, a hybrid approach is emerging – using Fitzpatrick (or Monk) as a starting point, supplemented by objective readings and detailed history for a 360-degree understanding of the patient’s skin. Practical diagnostic tools from melanin readers to advanced imaging now empower providers to go beyond guessing a skin type, to actually measuring it. As these technologies become more widespread, we can expect more personalised and safer cosmetic treatments, with fewer adverse events like burns or hyperpigmentation in patients of colour. Ultimately, the trend is toward data-driven, inclusive dermatology, where a combination of validated scales and modern devices leads to optimal outcomes for every skin type. The continued refinement and validation of these classification systems, especially across diverse populations, will be key to advancing aesthetic medicine in an equitable way.

Featured