Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39874580›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2025

User and Developer Views on Using AI Technologies to Facilitate the Early Detection of Skin Cancers in Primary Care Settings: Qualitative Semistructured Interview Study.

Owain Tudor Jones, Natalia Calanzani, Suzanne E Scott, Rubeta N Matin, Jon Emery, Fiona M Walter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Owain Tudor JonesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2783-9431
Natalia CalanzaniInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5068-2543
Suzanne E ScottWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5536-9612
Rubeta N MatinDepartment of Dermatology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9695-5412
Jon EmeryWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5274-6336
Fiona M WalterWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7191-6476

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSkin cancers, including melanoma and keratinocyte cancers, are among the most common cancers worldwide, and their incidence is rising in most populations. Earlier detection of skin cancer leads to better outcomes for patients. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have been applied to skin cancer diagnosis, but many technologies lack clinical evidence and/or the appropriate regulatory approvals. There are few qualitative studies examining the views of relevant stakeholders or evidence about the implementation and positioning of AI technologies in the skin cancer diagnostic pathway.

objectiveThis study aimed to understand the views of several stakeholder groups on the use of AI technologies to facilitate the early diagnosis of skin cancer, including patients, members of the public, general practitioners, primary care nurse practitioners, dermatologists, and AI researchers.

methodsThis was a qualitative, semistructured interview study with 29 stakeholders. Participants were purposively sampled based on age, sex, and geographical location. We conducted the interviews via Zoom between September 2022 and May 2023. Transcribed recordings were analyzed using thematic framework analysis. The framework for the Nonadoption, Abandonment, and Challenges to Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability was used to guide the analysis to help understand the complexity of implementing diagnostic technologies in clinical settings.

resultsMajor themes were "the position of AI in the skin cancer diagnostic pathway" and "the aim of the AI technology"; cross-cutting themes included trust, usability and acceptability, generalizability, evaluation and regulation, implementation, and long-term use. There was no clear consensus on where AI should be placed along the skin cancer diagnostic pathway, but most participants saw the technology in the hands of either patients or primary care practitioners. Participants were concerned about the quality of the data used to develop and test AI technologies and the impact this could have on their accuracy in clinical use with patients from a range of demographics and the risk of missing skin cancers. Ease of use and not increasing the workload of already strained health care services were important considerations for participants. Health care professionals and AI researchers reported a lack of established methods of evaluating and regulating AI technologies.

conclusionsThis study is one of the first to examine the views of a wide range of stakeholders on the use of AI technologies to facilitate early diagnosis of skin cancer. The optimal approach and position in the diagnostic pathway for these technologies have not yet been determined. AI technologies need to be developed and implemented carefully and thoughtfully, with attention paid to the quality and representativeness of the data used for development, to achieve their potential.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEarly Detection of CancerSkin NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchAIartificial intelligencemachine learningmelanomaMLmobile phoneprimary carequalitative researchskin cancer

Identifiers

PMID39874580
PMCPMC11815299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.