11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Patient Perspectives on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Skin Cancer Screening : A Qualitative Study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          How do patients perceive the use of artificial intelligence for skin cancer screening? A qualitative study conducted at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute evaluated 48 patients, 33% with a history of melanoma, 33% with a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer only, and 33% with no history of skin cancer. While 75% of the patients stated that they would recommend artificial intelligence to friends and family members, 94% expressed the importance of symbiosis between humans and artificial intelligence. Patients appear to be receptive to the use of artificial intelligence for skin cancer screening if the integrity of the human physician-patient relationship is preserved. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is expanding throughout the field of medicine. In dermatology, researchers are evaluating the potential for direct-to-patient and clinician decision-support AI tools to classify skin lesions. Although AI is poised to change how patients engage in health care, patient perspectives remain poorly understood. To explore how patients conceptualize AI and perceive the use of AI for skin cancer screening. A qualitative study using a grounded theory approach to semistructured interview analysis was conducted in general dermatology clinics at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and melanoma clinics at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Forty-eight patients were enrolled. Each interview was independently coded by 2 researchers with interrater reliability measurement; reconciled codes were used to assess code frequency. The study was conducted from May 6 to July 8, 2019. Artificial intelligence concept, perceived benefits and risks of AI, strengths and weaknesses of AI, AI implementation, response to conflict between human and AI clinical decision-making, and recommendation for or against AI. Of 48 patients enrolled, 26 participants (54%) were women; mean (SD) age was 53.3 (21.7) years. Sixteen patients (33%) had a history of melanoma, 16 patients (33%) had a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer only, and 16 patients (33%) had no history of skin cancer. Twenty-four patients were interviewed about a direct-to-patient AI tool and 24 patients were interviewed about a clinician decision-support AI tool. Interrater reliability ratings for the 2 coding teams were κ = 0.94 and κ = 0.89. Patients primarily conceptualized AI in terms of cognition. Increased diagnostic speed (29 participants [60%]) and health care access (29 [60%]) were the most commonly perceived benefits of AI for skin cancer screening; increased patient anxiety was the most commonly perceived risk (19 [40%]). Patients perceived both more accurate diagnosis (33 [69%]) and less accurate diagnosis (41 [85%]) to be the greatest strength and weakness of AI, respectively. The dominant theme that emerged was the importance of symbiosis between humans and AI (45 [94%]). Seeking biopsy was the most common response to conflict between human and AI clinical decision-making (32 [67%]). Overall, 36 patients (75%) would recommend AI to family members and friends. In this qualitative study, patients appeared to be receptive to the use of AI for skin cancer screening if implemented in a manner that preserves the integrity of the human physician-patient relationship. This qualitative study examines how the use of artificial intelligence as a screening tool is perceived by patients receiving care in a dermatology clinic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.

          Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (in depth interviews and focus groups). We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks

            Skin cancer, the most common human malignancy, is primarily diagnosed visually, beginning with an initial clinical screening and followed potentially by dermoscopic analysis, a biopsy and histopathological examination. Automated classification of skin lesions using images is a challenging task owing to the fine-grained variability in the appearance of skin lesions. Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) show potential for general and highly variable tasks across many fine-grained object categories. Here we demonstrate classification of skin lesions using a single CNN, trained end-to-end from images directly, using only pixels and disease labels as inputs. We train a CNN using a dataset of 129,450 clinical images—two orders of magnitude larger than previous datasets—consisting of 2,032 different diseases. We test its performance against 21 board-certified dermatologists on biopsy-proven clinical images with two critical binary classification use cases: keratinocyte carcinomas versus benign seborrheic keratoses; and malignant melanomas versus benign nevi. The first case represents the identification of the most common cancers, the second represents the identification of the deadliest skin cancer. The CNN achieves performance on par with all tested experts across both tasks, demonstrating an artificial intelligence capable of classifying skin cancer with a level of competence comparable to dermatologists. Outfitted with deep neural networks, mobile devices can potentially extend the reach of dermatologists outside of the clinic. It is projected that 6.3 billion smartphone subscriptions will exist by the year 2021 (ref. 13) and can therefore potentially provide low-cost universal access to vital diagnostic care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence

              Eric Topol (2019)
              The use of artificial intelligence, and the deep-learning subtype in particular, has been enabled by the use of labeled big data, along with markedly enhanced computing power and cloud storage, across all sectors. In medicine, this is beginning to have an impact at three levels: for clinicians, predominantly via rapid, accurate image interpretation; for health systems, by improving workflow and the potential for reducing medical errors; and for patients, by enabling them to process their own data to promote health. The current limitations, including bias, privacy and security, and lack of transparency, along with the future directions of these applications will be discussed in this article. Over time, marked improvements in accuracy, productivity, and workflow will likely be actualized, but whether that will be used to improve the patient-doctor relationship or facilitate its erosion remains to be seen.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Dermatology
                JAMA Dermatol
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                2168-6068
                May 01 2020
                May 01 2020
                : 156
                : 5
                : 501
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Yale School of Medicine, Department of Dermatology, New Haven, Connecticut
                [2 ]Harvard Medical School, Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
                [3 ]Medical student, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
                [4 ]Medical student, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
                [5 ]Medical student, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester
                [6 ]Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Department of Dermatology, Philadelphia
                [7 ]Stanford University School of Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Palo Alto, California
                [8 ]Department of Sociology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
                [9 ]Harvard Medical School, Center for Cutaneous Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
                [10 ]Department of Dermatology, Veterans Affairs Integrated Service Network 1, Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts
                Article
                10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.5014
                7066525
                32159733
                6300c999-1e30-4328-9b0c-47577165a33d
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article