Anonymous automated counselling for aesthetic dermatology using a chatbot – an analysis of age‐ and gender‐specific usage patterns

Feuchter, Sophie; Kunz, Michael; Djamei, Vahid; Navarini, Alexander A.

doi:10.1111/jdv.16907

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A text-based patient information chatbot named ‘Beautybot’ covering themes such as wrinkles and pigmentation disorders. Written and image-based content was provided in a multiple-choice-driven algorithmic workflow [ 18 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Artificial Intelligence “Hold” a Dermoscope?—The Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot to Translate the Dermoscopic Language

Karampinis,

Toli,

Georgopoulou

et al. 2024

Diagnostics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This survey represents the first endeavor to assess the clarity of the dermoscopic language by a chatbot, unveiling insights into the interplay between dermatologists and AI systems within the complexity of the dermoscopic language. Given the complex, descriptive, and metaphorical aspects of the dermoscopic language, subjective interpretations often emerge. The survey evaluated the completeness and diagnostic efficacy of chatbot-generated reports, focusing on their role in facilitating accurate diagnoses and educational opportunities for novice dermatologists. A total of 30 participants were presented with hypothetical dermoscopic descriptions of skin lesions, including dermoscopic descriptions of skin cancers such as BCC, SCC, and melanoma, skin cancer mimickers such as actinic and seborrheic keratosis, dermatofibroma, and atypical nevus, and inflammatory dermatosis such as psoriasis and alopecia areata. Each description was accompanied by specific clinical information, and the participants were tasked with assessing the differential diagnosis list generated by the AI chatbot in its initial response. In each scenario, the chatbot generated an extensive list of potential differential diagnoses, exhibiting lower performance in cases of SCC and inflammatory dermatoses, albeit without statistical significance, suggesting that the participants were equally satisfied with the responses provided. Scores decreased notably when practical descriptions of dermoscopic signs were provided. Answers to BCC scenario scores in the diagnosis category (2.9 ± 0.4) were higher than those with SCC (2.6 ± 0.66, p = 0.005) and inflammatory dermatoses (2.6 ± 0.67, p = 0). Similarly, in the teaching tool usefulness category, BCC-based chatbot differential diagnosis received higher scores (2.9 ± 0.4) compared to SCC (2.6 ± 0.67, p = 0.001) and inflammatory dermatoses (2.4 ± 0.81, p = 0). The abovementioned results underscore dermatologists’ familiarity with BCC dermoscopic images while highlighting the challenges associated with interpreting rigorous dermoscopic images. Moreover, by incorporating patient characteristics such as age, phototype, or immune state, the differential diagnosis list in each case was customized to include lesion types appropriate for each category, illustrating the AI’s flexibility in evaluating diagnoses and highlighting its value as a resource for dermatologists.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Artificial Intelligence “Hold” a Dermoscope?—The Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot to Translate the Dermoscopic Language

Karampinis,

Toli,

Georgopoulou

et al. 2024

Diagnostics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The array of digital health technologies available to support telemedicine delivery has also continued to mature, with the widespread availability of biosensors and communication platforms (eg, SMS text messaging platforms, chatbots, and mobile apps) and smartphone imaging, alongside transformative advancements in artificial intelligence. Many recent reports describe applications of these rapidly developing technologies in dermatology [4][5][6][7][8][9]. Attention is turning to quality, safety, and best practices in a sustained health care delivery model that incorporates telemedicine in a rapidly evolving landscape of digital health technologies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consensus Guidelines for Teledermatology: Scoping Review

Cummins¹,

Ong²,

Ivanova³

et al. 2023

JMIR Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Consensus guidelines and recommendations play an important role in fostering quality, safety, and best practices, as they represent an expert interpretation of the biomedical literature and its application to practice. However, it is unclear whether the recent collective experience of implementing telemedicine and the concurrent growth in the evidence base for teledermatology have resulted in more robust guidance. Objective The objective of this review was to describe the extent and nature of currently available guidance, defined as consensus guidelines and recommendations available for telemedicine in dermatology, with guidance defined as consensus or evidence-based guidelines, protocols, or recommendations. Methods We conducted a single-reviewer scoping review of the literature to assess the extent and nature of available guidance, consensus guidelines, or recommendations related to teledermatology. We limited the review to published material in English since 2013, reflecting approximately the past 10 years. We conducted the review in November and December of the year 2022. Results We identified 839 potentially eligible publications, with 9 additional records identified through organizational websites. A total of 15 publications met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The guidelines focused on varied topics and populations about dermatology and skin diseases. However, the most frequent focus was general dermatology (8/15, 53%). Approximately half of the telemedicine guidance described in the publications was specific to dermatology practice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The publications were largely published in or after the year 2020 (13/15, 87%). Geographical origin spanned several different nations, including Australia, the United States, European countries, and India. Conclusions We found an increase in COVID-19–specific teledermatology guidance during 2020, in addition to general teledermatology guidance during the period of the study. Primary sources of general teledermatology guidance reported in the biomedical literature are the University of Queensland’s Centre for Online Health and Australasian College of Dermatologists E-Health Committee, and the American Telemedicine Association. There is strong evidence of international engagement and interest. Despite the recent increase in research reports related to telemedicine, there is a relative lack of new guidance based on COVID-19 lessons and innovations. There is a need to review recent evidence and update existing recommendations. Additionally, there is a need for guidance that addresses emerging technologies.

show abstract

Consensus Guidelines for Teledermatology: Scoping Review (Preprint)

Cummins¹,

Ong²,

Ivanova³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Consensus guidelines and recommendations play an important role in fostering quality, safety, and best practices, as they represent an expert interpretation of the biomedical literature and its application to practice. However, it is unclear whether the recent collective experience of implementing telemedicine and the concurrent growth in the evidence base for teledermatology have resulted in more robust guidance. OBJECTIVE The objective of this review was to describe the extent and nature of currently available guidance, defined as consensus guidelines and recommendations, available for the practice of telemedicine in dermatology, with guidance defined as consensus or evidence-based guidelines, protocols, or recommendations. METHODS We conducted a single-reviewer scoping review of the literature to assess the extent and nature of available guidance, consensus guidelines, or recommendations related to teledermatology. We limited the review to published material in the English language, since 2013, reflecting approximately the past ten years. We conducted the review in November and December of 2022. RESULTS We identified 839 potentially eligible publications, with an additional nine records identified via a grey literature search. Fifteen publications met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The guidelines focused on varied topics and populations concerning dermatology and skin diseases. However, the most frequent focus was general dermatology (53%). Approximately half of the telemedicine guidance described in the publications was specific to dermatology practice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the publications were largely published in or after the year 2020 (13/15, 87%). Geographical origin spanned several different nations, including Australia, the United States, European nations, and India. CONCLUSIONS We found an increase in COVID-19 specific teledermatology guidance during 2020, in addition to general teledermatology guidance during the time period of the study. Primary sources of general teledermatology guidance, reported in the biomedical literature, are the University of Queensland’s Centre for Online Health and Australasian College of Dermatologists E-Health Committee, and the American Telemedicine Association. There is strong evidence of international engagement and interest. Despite the recent increase in research reports related to telemedicine, there is a relative lack of new guidance based upon COVID-19 lessons and innovations. Clearly, there is a need to review recent evidence and update existing recommendations. Additionally, there is a need for guidance that addresses emerging technologies.

show abstract

Anonymous automated counselling for aesthetic dermatology using a chatbot – an analysis of age‐ and gender‐specific usage patterns

Cited by 3 publications

References 9 publications

Can Artificial Intelligence “Hold” a Dermoscope?—The Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot to Translate the Dermoscopic Language

Can Artificial Intelligence “Hold” a Dermoscope?—The Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Chatbot to Translate the Dermoscopic Language

Consensus Guidelines for Teledermatology: Scoping Review

Consensus Guidelines for Teledermatology: Scoping Review (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About