About

Arlene M. Ruiz De Luzuriaga is an Associate Professor of Medicine in the Department of Medicine at The University of Chicago. Her clinical interests encompass a broad range of dermatological conditions including acne, actinic keratoses, basal cell carcinoma, dermatopathology, drug allergies, hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), skin infections, lichen planus, mole mapping and surveillance, occupational dermatitis, photodynamic therapy, phototherapy, pigmentation disorders, psoriasis, rosacea, seborrheic keratosis, squamous cell carcinoma, telangiectasia, and warts. Her research and clinical work focus on advancing understanding and treatment of these dermatological issues, as well as exploring innovative tools such as artificial intelligence and large language models in dermatology education and patient care. Dr. Ruiz De Luzuriaga has contributed to the field through her involvement in studies related to teledermatology, skin cancer screening disparities, and the application of AI in residency recruitment, among others. She is actively engaged in both clinical practice and research, aiming to improve dermatological health outcomes and education.

Research topics

• Computer Science
• Medicine
• World Wide Web
• Environmental health
• Medical emergency
• Philosophy
• Surgery
• Dermatology
• Pathology
• Linguistics
• Nursing
• Family medicine

Selected publications

• Gender differences in sun protection use and beliefs amongst outdoor athletes

  International Journal of Women’s Dermatology · 2025-11-06

  letterOpen accessSenior author

  What is known about this subject in regard to women and their families? Athletes who play outdoor sports receive large, frequent doses of ultraviolet radiation, which can increase their risk of developing skin cancer. Prior research has shown low rates of sun protection use amongst outdoor athletes, with few studies focusing on female athletes (FA) or sex differences. What is new from this article as messages for women and their families? Despite higher rates of sunscreen use, FA reported sunburns at higher rates than male athletes. Blistering sunburns were common amongst outdoor athletes, with nearly a third of FA having been affected. FA were more likely to be deterred from using sunscreen by irritation to the skin than male athletes. Introduction Despite women’s sports making major advances over the past several decades, research focusing on the health of female athletes (FA) or comparing differences between the genders has significantly lagged behind.1,2 A 2023 study found that only 8.8% of literature from leading sports medicine journals focused on FA, compared to 70.7% focusing on male athletes (MA). 20.5% included both males and females.1 Sun exposure is a pertinent health concern for athletes who play outdoor sports due to prolonged ultraviolet radiation exposure. This potentially increases the risk of developing skin cancer, especially with inconsistent use of sun protection.3 Despite this risk, relatively few studies have focused on sun protection amongst outdoor athletes, and even fewer have focused on FA or gender differences.4,5 These limited studies have found that FA may be more likely to engage in sun protective behaviors than males.4,5 To investigate further this issue, we administered a survey evaluating sun exposure, use of sun protection, and attitudes towards sun protection. Materials and methods One hundred thirty-five adult outdoor athletes were recruited anonymously via Prolific Academic (estimated survey response rate 40–50%, https://www.prolific.com/) and were directed to an anonymous Qualtrics survey. All participants signed a consent form and were compensated. The University of Chicago Institutional Review Board provided oversight. The survey included questions in the following areas: demographic questions (eg, race, age, and gender), history of playing outdoor sports, assessment of behaviors around sun protection, and assessment of attitudes and beliefs towards sun protection. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel. Results Fifty-six participants (41.5%) were FA, 5 (3.7%) were nonbinary or preferred not to specify, and 74 (54.8%) were MA. The participants had the following distribution of self-reported Fitzpatrick skin types: 5.2% (type I), 17.8% (type II), 37.0% (type III), 24.4% (type IV), 10.4% (type V), 5.2% (type VI). The median age was 33 (range 18–64). 73 (54.1%) athletes played their sport at a recreational or intramural level, and 62 (45.9%) played their sport at a club, collegiate, or professional level. FAs were more likely to report recent sunburns than MAs (71.4 vs 51.4%, P = .02) (Fig. 1).Fig. 1.: Gender differences in sunburns over the past 6 months. FAs were more likely than MAs to report that burning or stinging caused them to not wear sunscreen (21.4 vs 8.1%, P = .03) (Fig. 2). FA, female athletes; MA, male athletes.Discussion While FAs used sunscreen more consistently than MAs, FAs reported higher rates of sunburns. Reasons for this may include improper sunscreen application, apparel differences, and differences in sports played.6 Limitations include sample size, possible recall and sampling biases, and an underestimation of response rate. Repeated sunburns put athletes at increased risk for skin cancer. Proper counseling on adequate sun protection for these patients can help decrease this risk and keep FA healthy and active. Future studies may focus on gender differences in various countries, the underlying causes for gender differences, decreasing irritation from sunscreen, and interventions to increase proper sunscreen usage for outdoor athletes.Fig. 2.: Gender differences in sunscreen deterring factors. FAs reported wearing sunscreen at higher rates than MAs when playing outdoor sports (55.4 vs 35.1%, P = .02). None (0/5) of NAs reported wearing sunscreen consistently. 32.1% of FAs, 33.8% of MAs, and 80.0% of NAs reported a history of blistering sunburns. FA, female athletes; MA, male athletes; NA, nonbinary/preferred not to specify athletes.Conflicts of interest None. Funding The authors would like to thank the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine for their support of this research. Study approval This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Chicago and conducted in accordance with Institutional Review Board policies. Author contributions GKG: Research design, writing of manuscript, performance of research, and data analysis. OAP: Writing of manuscript and data analysis. ARL: Research design, writing of manuscript, and data analysis. Patient consent Informed, written consent was obtained for all study participants. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine for their support of this research.

  PublisherDOI

• 63794 Memorability of Patient-Doctor Communication Regarding Sun-Protective Behaviors

  Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2025-09-01

  articleSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• An Urticarial Rash, Fevers, and Arthralgias

  The American Journal of Medicine · 2024-03-18

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Assessing the Application of Large Language Models in Generating Dermatologic Patient Education Materials According to Reading Level: Qualitative Study

  JMIR Dermatology · 2024 · 34 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Computer Science
  • Computer Science
  • Linguistics

  BACKGROUND: Dermatologic patient education materials (PEMs) are often written above the national average seventh- to eighth-grade reading level. ChatGPT-3.5, GPT-4, DermGPT, and DocsGPT are large language models (LLMs) that are responsive to user prompts. Our project assesses their use in generating dermatologic PEMs at specified reading levels. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the ability of select LLMs to generate PEMs for common and rare dermatologic conditions at unspecified and specified reading levels. Further, the study aims to assess the preservation of meaning across such LLM-generated PEMs, as assessed by dermatology resident trainees. METHODS: The Flesch-Kincaid reading level (FKRL) of current American Academy of Dermatology PEMs was evaluated for 4 common (atopic dermatitis, acne vulgaris, psoriasis, and herpes zoster) and 4 rare (epidermolysis bullosa, bullous pemphigoid, lamellar ichthyosis, and lichen planus) dermatologic conditions. We prompted ChatGPT-3.5, GPT-4, DermGPT, and DocsGPT to "Create a patient education handout about [condition] at a [FKRL]" to iteratively generate 10 PEMs per condition at unspecified fifth- and seventh-grade FKRLs, evaluated with Microsoft Word readability statistics. The preservation of meaning across LLMs was assessed by 2 dermatology resident trainees. RESULTS: The current American Academy of Dermatology PEMs had an average (SD) FKRL of 9.35 (1.26) and 9.50 (2.3) for common and rare diseases, respectively. For common diseases, the FKRLs of LLM-produced PEMs ranged between 9.8 and 11.21 (unspecified prompt), between 4.22 and 7.43 (fifth-grade prompt), and between 5.98 and 7.28 (seventh-grade prompt). For rare diseases, the FKRLs of LLM-produced PEMs ranged between 9.85 and 11.45 (unspecified prompt), between 4.22 and 7.43 (fifth-grade prompt), and between 5.98 and 7.28 (seventh-grade prompt). At the fifth-grade reading level, GPT-4 was better at producing PEMs for both common and rare conditions than ChatGPT-3.5 (P=.001 and P=.01, respectively), DermGPT (P<.001 and P=.03, respectively), and DocsGPT (P<.001 and P=.02, respectively). At the seventh-grade reading level, no significant difference was found between ChatGPT-3.5, GPT-4, DocsGPT, or DermGPT in producing PEMs for common conditions (all P>.05); however, for rare conditions, ChatGPT-3.5 and DocsGPT outperformed GPT-4 (P=.003 and P<.001, respectively). The preservation of meaning analysis revealed that for common conditions, DermGPT ranked the highest for overall ease of reading, patient understandability, and accuracy (14.75/15, 98%); for rare conditions, handouts generated by GPT-4 ranked the highest (14.5/15, 97%). CONCLUSIONS: GPT-4 appeared to outperform ChatGPT-3.5, DocsGPT, and DermGPT at the fifth-grade FKRL for both common and rare conditions, although both ChatGPT-3.5 and DocsGPT performed better than GPT-4 at the seventh-grade FKRL for rare conditions. LLM-produced PEMs may reliably meet seventh-grade FKRLs for select common and rare dermatologic conditions and are easy to read, understandable for patients, and mostly accurate. LLMs may play a role in enhancing health literacy and disseminating accessible, understandable PEMs in dermatology.

  PublisherDOI

• Improving data participation for the development of artificial intelligence in dermatology

  Clinics in Dermatology · 2024-06-21 · 2 citations

  review1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Characteristics and career outcomes of dermatology-focused medical student research grant recipients

  Clinics in Dermatology · 2024-08-06 · 1 citations

  articleSenior authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Combined Melanocytic Nevus and Nevus Sebaceus: A Case Series and Review of the Literature

  American Journal of Dermatopathology · 2024-04-22

  review

  ABSTRACT: Nevus sebaceus is a rare congenital hamartoma with clinical and histopathological features that change with puberty. It has been associated with a number of secondary neoplasms, most of which are thought to derive from follicular germ cells. In this article, the authors describe a total of 3 cases of combined melanocytic nevus and nevus sebaceus to highlight this rare finding.

  PublisherDOI

• The Potential for Artificial Intelligence Tools in Residency Recruitment

  Cutis · 2024-02-01 · 6 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  The information considered important for the holistic review of residency applications has expanded beyond numerical and discrete data such as grades, test scores, publications, and awards. To conduct such a thorough review requires time and the processing of large amounts of information, which invites the development of new tools to streamline application review. Artificial intelligence (AI) solutions may increase the efficiency of the review process as well as enhance the opportunity to find applicants who may have been overlooked by a traditional review process. These tools also may help applicants find programs that fit their career aspirations, practice interview techniques, and refine their written applications. With the introduction of new technology comes the need to also monitor for potential pitfalls, which will become more critical when adoption begins to accelerate, highlighting the need to both embrace and consistently reassess the use of these innovations in the residency recruitment process.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• 44599 Primary Varicella versus Disseminated Herpes Zoster in a patient with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

  Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2023-09-01 · 1 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Google Trends analysis of teledermatology interest in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic

  JAAD International · 2023-04-22 · 2 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  No abstract

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Zi-Yi Choo

  University of Chicago

  5 shared

• Liesl Schroedl

  University of Chicago

  4 shared

• Christopher R. Shea

  4 shared

• Adena E. Rosenblatt

  University of Chicago Medical Center

  3 shared

• Grace Y. Duan

  University of Chicago

  3 shared

• Mark D. Hoffman

  University of Chicago Medical Center

  3 shared

• Sarah L. Stein

  University of Chicago

  2 shared

• Shaymaa Ashi

  Schweiger Dermatology Group (United States)

  2 shared

Labs

• University of Chicago Department of Medicine-DermatologyPI