User and Developer Views on Using AI Technologies to Facilitate the Early Detection of Skin Cancers in Primary Care Settings: Qualitative Semistructured Interview Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Skin 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. OBJECTIVE: This 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. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: Major 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,027 | 0,045 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».