Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026
Artificial intelligence in acne vulgaris patients.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Atak Tuğba, Karadeniz Tuba Betül
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The 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.
METHODS: This cross-sectional, descriptive study included acne patients aged ≥18 years with internet access. Alongside physician-led clinical evaluations, a structured questionnaire was administered.
RESULTS: Among 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."
CONCLUSION: The 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.
METHODS: This cross-sectional, descriptive study included acne patients aged ≥18 years with internet access. Alongside physician-led clinical evaluations, a structured questionnaire was administered.
RESULTS: Among 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."
CONCLUSION: The 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.