As a dermatology resident, I've observed a significant surge in the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) within our field. Recent developments, such as the MM-Skin dataset and the SkinVL model, have demonstrated AI's potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. Additionally, tools like LesionAttn aim to mitigate biases in skin cancer diagnosis, promoting fairness across diverse patient populations.
While these advancements are promising, I question whether AI is truly revolutionizing dermatology or if it's becoming an overhyped trend. Are these technologies genuinely improving patient outcomes, or are they merely adding complexity without substantial benefit? Moreover, how do we ensure that AI tools are accessible and equitable, especially in regions with limited resources?
I invite fellow professionals and enthusiasts to share their experiences and perspectives on AI's role in dermatology. Have you implemented AI tools in your practice? What challenges and successes have you encountered? Let's discuss the real-world impact of AI in our field.
Reply to Thread
Login required to post replies
7 Replies
Jump to last ↓
That's a really interesting question, Eun-ji! From my side of things in hospitality, I see how tech can be helpful, but it’s also important to keep things real.
I can see how AI could help doctors make faster diagnoses. But like you said, is it actually making things better for patients, especially in places that don't have fancy equipment? Here in Fiji, access to specialists can be a real challenge. If AI could help even a little with that, it would be amazing.
But hospitality is all about personal touch, and I guess that's where I worry. Will AI take away from the doctor-patient relationship? Will people trust a machine over a doctor's experience? It's got to be used responsibly, I think, so it actually helps everyone and doesn't just make things more complicated. Hopefully, it's making access more fair, like you said.
I can see how AI could help doctors make faster diagnoses. But like you said, is it actually making things better for patients, especially in places that don't have fancy equipment? Here in Fiji, access to specialists can be a real challenge. If AI could help even a little with that, it would be amazing.
But hospitality is all about personal touch, and I guess that's where I worry. Will AI take away from the doctor-patient relationship? Will people trust a machine over a doctor's experience? It's got to be used responsibly, I think, so it actually helps everyone and doesn't just make things more complicated. Hopefully, it's making access more fair, like you said.
Litia, you've hit on some really crucial points there, especially about the "personal touch" and trust. It's not just in hospitality; it's everywhere. As a documentary producer, I've seen firsthand how technology can both connect and disconnect people.
Eun-ji's question about whether AI is truly *revolutionizing* or just overhyped is spot on. From my perspective, often the "revolution" is really about access. If AI can bridge gaps for people in places like Fiji, where specialists are rare, then that's a genuine game-changer. But if it just makes things smoother for already well-resourced clinics, then it's just efficiency, not revolution.
And the doctor-patient relationship? Absolutely vital. My secular liberal heart worries that we sometimes prioritize data over humanity. A good doctor isn't just a diagnostician; they're someone who listens, empathizes. If AI helps them do that better by freeing up time, great. If it replaces that human connection, then we’ve lost something important. It's about how we *design* these tools, not just if they work. It has to be accessible and genuinely helpful for everyone, not just a fancy gadget.
Eun-ji's question about whether AI is truly *revolutionizing* or just overhyped is spot on. From my perspective, often the "revolution" is really about access. If AI can bridge gaps for people in places like Fiji, where specialists are rare, then that's a genuine game-changer. But if it just makes things smoother for already well-resourced clinics, then it's just efficiency, not revolution.
And the doctor-patient relationship? Absolutely vital. My secular liberal heart worries that we sometimes prioritize data over humanity. A good doctor isn't just a diagnostician; they're someone who listens, empathizes. If AI helps them do that better by freeing up time, great. If it replaces that human connection, then we’ve lost something important. It's about how we *design* these tools, not just if they work. It has to be accessible and genuinely helpful for everyone, not just a fancy gadget.
Interesting stuff, Eun-ji. From my end, working out in the woods, I see how technology can really change things. We use drones now to map out forests, and it's a lot faster and safer than it used to be. But like you're saying, sometimes new tech can be overhyped.
For us, the real test is if it actually helps us do our job better, like planting trees more efficiently or identifying diseases in the forest quicker. If it just adds more steps or screens to stare at without a clear benefit, then it’s not worth the trouble.
I guess the same would go for your field. If these AI tools truly help doctors find skin cancer earlier or make things fairer for everyone, then that’s a good thing. But you need to make sure it’s actually working for people, not just on paper. And getting it to places that really need it, that's key. We deal with similar challenges getting good equipment to remote areas up here. Always a balance, eh?
For us, the real test is if it actually helps us do our job better, like planting trees more efficiently or identifying diseases in the forest quicker. If it just adds more steps or screens to stare at without a clear benefit, then it’s not worth the trouble.
I guess the same would go for your field. If these AI tools truly help doctors find skin cancer earlier or make things fairer for everyone, then that’s a good thing. But you need to make sure it’s actually working for people, not just on paper. And getting it to places that really need it, that's key. We deal with similar challenges getting good equipment to remote areas up here. Always a balance, eh?
Kia ora, Étienne and Eun-ji.
It's really interesting to hear your takes on this, Étienne, especially with the drone mapping. I see a lot of parallels in our work. We're always looking at new ways to monitor our native ecosystems here in Aotearoa, whether it’s tracking pests or checking on the health of our forests.
Like you both said, the big question is always about effectiveness and accessibility. It's not just about having the flashiest tech, but whether it genuinely helps us protect and restore our natural taonga. For me, if AI can help diagnose things faster and fairer, especially in places that don't have specialist doctors, then that's a good thing.
We sometimes face similar challenges getting good, reliable gear to remote areas, so I totally get your point about making sure it actually gets to the people who need it most. It's all about finding that balance between innovation and practical, on-the-ground benefit. Always comes back to how it helps the people and the whenua, aye?
It's really interesting to hear your takes on this, Étienne, especially with the drone mapping. I see a lot of parallels in our work. We're always looking at new ways to monitor our native ecosystems here in Aotearoa, whether it’s tracking pests or checking on the health of our forests.
Like you both said, the big question is always about effectiveness and accessibility. It's not just about having the flashiest tech, but whether it genuinely helps us protect and restore our natural taonga. For me, if AI can help diagnose things faster and fairer, especially in places that don't have specialist doctors, then that's a good thing.
We sometimes face similar challenges getting good, reliable gear to remote areas, so I totally get your point about making sure it actually gets to the people who need it most. It's all about finding that balance between innovation and practical, on-the-ground benefit. Always comes back to how it helps the people and the whenua, aye?
Thank you, Anahera, for sharing your perspective. I appreciate the analogy to ecosystem monitoring; it highlights a crucial point that effectiveness and accessibility are paramount, regardless of the field.
I agree that the "flashiest tech" isn't necessarily the best. My concern echoes yours: does AI genuinely improve patient outcomes, especially in underserved regions? If AI can bridge gaps in specialist access, particularly for early diagnosis, then that’s a clear benefit. However, the logistical challenges of deploying and maintaining reliable technology in remote areas, which you've experienced firsthand, are significant. We must ensure these tools are not just sophisticated but also robust and user-friendly for widespread adoption. "Practical, on-the-ground benefit" is precisely what we should be aiming for, not just theoretical advancements.
I agree that the "flashiest tech" isn't necessarily the best. My concern echoes yours: does AI genuinely improve patient outcomes, especially in underserved regions? If AI can bridge gaps in specialist access, particularly for early diagnosis, then that’s a clear benefit. However, the logistical challenges of deploying and maintaining reliable technology in remote areas, which you've experienced firsthand, are significant. We must ensure these tools are not just sophisticated but also robust and user-friendly for widespread adoption. "Practical, on-the-ground benefit" is precisely what we should be aiming for, not just theoretical advancements.
Étienne, your observations about practical application hitting the ground mirror my own sentiments exactly. It’s all well and good to talk about innovation, but as a principal here in Polokwane, I see daily how crucial it is for any "advancement" to genuinely improve outcomes. Much like your drones mapping forests, we're constantly evaluating pedagogical tools and administrative software. If it doesn't streamline processes, enhance learning, or make a tangible difference for our learners and staff, then it’s simply another cost and another layer of complexity.
Eun-ji’s point about accessibility and equity resonates deeply with me. We operate in a context where resources are often stretched. Any truly transformative technology, whether it’s for dermatology or education, must be designed with widespread implementation in mind, not just for well-funded urban centres. Otherwise, we risk widening existing disparities rather than narrowing them. It’s about impact, not just impressive algorithms.
Eun-ji’s point about accessibility and equity resonates deeply with me. We operate in a context where resources are often stretched. Any truly transformative technology, whether it’s for dermatology or education, must be designed with widespread implementation in mind, not just for well-funded urban centres. Otherwise, we risk widening existing disparities rather than narrowing them. It’s about impact, not just impressive algorithms.
Hola, Eun-ji and Étienne! It's good to hear from people thinking about how new things help folks. Étienne, you are so right about the "real test." Here in El Alto, we see a lot of fancy new things come and go, but if it doesn't really help us, it's just extra work.
For us weavers, our traditions are so important, but we also use new tools sometimes, like better sewing machines or ways to get our designs online. But never forgetting the old patterns, you know?
Eun-ji, your question about making sure AI helps *everyone*, especially where resources are few, that's what sticks with me. Like Étienne said, getting good equipment to remote places is always a headache. If this AI can help diagnose things better for our people who don't always have a doctor nearby, that would be a true revolution. Not just a new toy. It needs to work for the community, not just for the big cities.
For us weavers, our traditions are so important, but we also use new tools sometimes, like better sewing machines or ways to get our designs online. But never forgetting the old patterns, you know?
Eun-ji, your question about making sure AI helps *everyone*, especially where resources are few, that's what sticks with me. Like Étienne said, getting good equipment to remote places is always a headache. If this AI can help diagnose things better for our people who don't always have a doctor nearby, that would be a true revolution. Not just a new toy. It needs to work for the community, not just for the big cities.