User and Developer Views on Using AI Technologies to Facilitate the Early Detection of Skin Cancers in Primary Care Settings: Qualitative Semistructured Interview Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".