ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
Artificial intelligence in acne vulgaris patients.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the experiences and confidence levels of acne patients using artificial intelligence tools. This study investigates whether patients view artificial intelligence as a standalone resource or a facilitator of physician collaboration to support the ethical implementation of healthcare technologies.
methodsThis cross-sectional, descriptive study included acne patients aged ≥18 years with internet access. Alongside physician-led clinical evaluations, a structured questionnaire was administered.
resultsAmong 123 patients (81.3% female), 45.5% utilized artificial intelligence tools for general health purposes before consulting a physician, with acne-specific artificial intelligence usage being significantly driven by the perception of rapid access (r=0.490, p<0.001). Despite this interest, 67.5% insisted on professional validation for artificial intelligence advice, and notably, no significant correlation was found between clinical acne score and artificial intelligence utilization for acne management. Additionally, 55.3% of participants expressed concern about the risk of artificial intelligence making incorrect diagnoses, and 48.8% stated that they were reluctant to share personal data, such as photos, with these systems. Of those who prefer artificial intelligence, 53.7% use it for "rapid and easy access," while 52% stated that they "would never use it without consulting a doctor."
conclusionThe integration of artificial intelligence in dermatology necessitates a physician-led, transparent approach that prioritizes digital health literacy and ensures these tools serve as supervised supplements rather than a replacement for human-centered care.
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.