ArticleJMIR dermatology2023
Experiences Regarding Use and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence-Supported Follow-Up of Atypical Moles at a Dermatological Outpatient Clinic: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR dermatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nurses' Experiences Using AI in Clinical Practice: Systematic Review.JMIR nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Ethical implications of the use of AI-based technologies for medical image classification systems in screening: a qualitative systematic review.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Healthcare professionals' perspectives on artificial intelligence in clinical practice: a systematic review of facilitators and challenges.Oxford open digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in numerous medical fields. In dermatology, AI can be used in the form of computer-assisted diagnosis (CAD) systems when assessing and diagnosing skin lesions suspicious of melanoma, a potentially lethal skin cancer with rising incidence all over the world. In particular, CAD may be a valuable tool in the follow-up of patients with high risk of developing melanoma, such as patients with multiple atypical moles. One such CAD system, ATBM Master (FotoFinder), can execute total body dermoscopy (TBD). This process comprises automatically photographing a patient´s entire body and then neatly displaying moles on a computer screen, grouped according to their clinical relevance. Proprietary FotoFinder algorithms underlie this organized presentation of moles. In addition, ATBM Master's optional convoluted neural network (CNN)-based Moleanalyzer Pro software can be used to further assess moles and estimate their probability of malignancy.
objectiveFew qualitative studies have been conducted on the implementation of AI-supported procedures in dermatology. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate how health care providers experience the use and implementation of a CAD system like ATBM Master, in particular its TBD module. In this way, the study aimed to elucidate potential barriers to the application of such new technology.
methodsWe conducted a thematic analysis based on 2 focus group interviews with 14 doctors and nurses regularly working in an outpatient pigmented lesions clinic.
resultsSurprisingly, the study revealed that only 3 participants had actual experience using the TBD module. Even so, all participants were able to provide many notions and anticipations about its use, resulting in 3 major themes emerging from the interviews. First, several organizational matters were revealed to be a barrier to consistent use of the ATBM Master's TBD module, namely lack of guidance, time pressure, and insufficient training. Second, the study found that the perceived benefits of TBD were the ability to objectively detect and monitor subtle lesion changes and unbiasedness of the procedure. Imprecise identification of moles, inability to photograph certain areas, and substandard technical aspects were the perceived weaknesses. Lastly, the study found that clinicians were open to use AI-powered technology and that the TBD module was considered a supplementary tool to aid the medical staff, rather than a replacement of the clinician.
conclusionsDemonstrated by how few of the participants had actual experience with the TBD module, this study showed that implementation of new technology does not occur automatically. It highlights the importance of having a strategy for implementation to ensure the optimized application of CAD tools. The study identified areas that could be improved when implementing AI-powered technology, as well as providing insight on how medical staff anticipated and experienced the use of a CAD device in dermatology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.