Cited by 33Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationAI in cancer detection

Exploring the feasibility of an artificial intelligence based clinical decision support system for cutaneous melanoma detection in primary care – a mixed method study

Open access
Helenason, Jonatan, Ekström, Christoffer, Falk, Magnus, Papachristou, Panagiotis·2024·Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care

Abstract

AI-based CDSS might play an important future role in cutaneous melanoma diagnostics, provided sufficient evidence of diagnostic accuracy and usability supporting its trustworthiness among the users.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02813432.2023.2283190

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ease of use; complex interfaces; and inconsistent performance, for example, due to false positives and negatives, add burden to the workflow, creating more work for clinicians, thereby impeding adoption.

    “Ease of use; complex interfaces; and inconsistent performance, for example, due to false positives and negatives add burden to the workflow, creating more work for clinicians, thereby impeding adoption [42,52,57-59].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [58]

    The Results sections on Ease of use and The importance of trust describe minor usability problems and say that trust in diagnostic guidance matters for adoption into the clinical workflow. The Discussion also links ease of use to time efficiency. The paper does not establish that complex interfaces or false positives and negatives created extra work for clinicians; respondents generally described this CDSS as easy to use and time-saving. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Facilitators of trust include endorsement of the technology by experts and academically backed clinicians (including regulating bodies such as the government), evidence of output accuracy based on evaluation of AI, and positive opinions from trusted thought leaders in clinical fields.

    “Facilitators of trust included the endorsement of the technology by experts as well as academically backed clinicians, including regulating bodies such as the government; evidence of output accuracy based on the evaluation of AI; and positive opinions from trusted thought leaders in the respective clinical fields [42,58,60].”

    From Barriers to and facilitators of artificial intelligence adoption in health care: scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [58]

    The Results section, “Factors governing trust” (page unavailable), identifies clinical evidence of diagnostic accuracy, certification, and recommendations or positive opinions from dermatologists as factors that could increase trust. It does not identify government bodies or academically backed clinicians as endorsers, so that part of the claim is not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [9]Menvielle L, Audrain-Pontevia AF, Menvielle W. The digitization of healthcare: new challenges and opportunities. Palgrave Macmillan London (Book Publisher), 1st Edition. 2017: 1– 454. doi: 10.1057/978-1-349-95173-4/COVER. · DOI
  2. [11]apão, L.V. (2019). The Future of Healthcare: The Impact of Digitalization on Healthcare Services Performance. In: Pereira Neto, A., Flynn, M. (eds) The Internet and Health in Brazil. Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-99289-1_22/COVER/. · DOI
  3. [26]Proudfoot K. Inductive/deductive hybrid thematic analysis in mixed methods research. J Mix Methods Res. 2022; 2023: 308– 326. doi: 10.1177/15586898221126816/FORMAT/EPUB. · DOI
  4. [36]Lewis JR, Sauro J. The factor structure of the system usability scale. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). 2009; 5619 LNCS: 94– 103. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-02806-9_12/COVER/. · DOI
  5. [38]Ministry of Education. Swedish Ethical Review Act (2003:460) [Internet]; 2023. [cited 2022 Apr 10]. Available from: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-2003460-om-etikprovning-av-forskning-som_sfs-2003-460.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Helenason, J., Ekström, C., Falk, M., & Papachristou, P.
Affiliations
  • AI Medical Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Papachristou, Panagiotis
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care
Published
2023-11-20
Volume
42
Issue
1
Pages
51-60
ISSN
  • 0281-3432 (ISSN-L)
  • 1502-7724
OpenAlex
W4388834207
Cited by
33
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 1
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
artificial intelligence, clinical decision support systems, cutaneous melanoma, melanoma detection, primary care, diagnostic accuracy, usability, trustworthiness
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Melanoma, Primary Health Care, Skin Neoplasms, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review