ArticleDermatology practical & conceptual2026
Patient Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Malignant Melanoma Diagnosis.
Article in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly diagnosis of malignant melanoma (MM) is challenged by an increased incidence and a shortage of dermatologists. This has raised expectations on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for diagnosing MM. Implementation of AI-based diagnostic tools rely on diagnostic performance as well as on patient trust and acceptance. Therefore, understanding patients' perspectives is essential when developing trustworthy AI-based diagnostic tools.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate perspectives and expectations of AI-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) for MM among individuals at high risk of developing MM.
methodsAn inductive qualitative study using an interpretive description methodology was carried out. Ten semi-structured interviews incorporating vignettes to investigate expectations regarding trust in AI, physician-patient interaction, diagnostic efficiency, and data security were conducted.
resultsParticipants preferred AI being used as decision support for physicians. The interaction with a physician (human-in-the-loop) was deemed key to the experience of a proper diagnostic process, and participants recognized AI's potential to streamline the process.
conclusionsParticipants trust AI and recognize the potential of AI-CAD in the detection of MM. However, they emphasized the importance of human interaction as essential to a positive diagnostic experience. As trust is fundamental to safe implementation of new technologies in clinical practice, we recommend conducting post-market prospective studies employing a mixed methods approach. This will help ensure both patients' trust in the technology and physicians' confidence in its clinical utility.
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.