nach oben

American Journal of Clinical Dermatology

Erschienen in:

22.12.2020 | Review Article

The Importance of Incorporating Human Factors in the Design and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence for Skin Cancer Diagnosis in the Real World

verfasst von: Claire M. Felmingham, Nikki R. Adler, Zongyuan Ge, Rachael L. Morton, Monika Janda, Victoria J. Mar

Erschienen in: American Journal of Clinical Dermatology | Ausgabe 2/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been shown to diagnose skin lesions with impressive accuracy in experimental settings. The majority of the literature to date has compared AI and dermatologists as opponents in skin cancer diagnosis. However, in the real-world clinical setting, the clinician will work in collaboration with AI. Existing evidence regarding the integration of such AI diagnostic tools into clinical practice is limited. Human factors, such as cognitive style, personality, experience, preferences, and attitudes may influence clinicians’ use of AI. In this review, we consider these human factors and the potential cognitive errors, biases, and unintended consequences that could arise when using an AI skin cancer diagnostic tool in the real world. Integrating this knowledge in the design and implementation of AI technology will assist in ensuring that the end product can be used effectively. Dermatologist leadership in the development of these tools will further improve their clinical relevance and safety.

Schadendorf D, van Akkooi ACJ, Berking C, Griewank KG, Gutzmer R, Hauschild A, et al. Melanoma. Lancet. 2018;392(10151):971–84.PubMed

Gershenwald JE, Scolyer RA, Hess KR, Sondak VK, Long GV, Ross MI, et al. Melanoma staging: evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(6):472–92.PubMedPubMedCentral

Gilmore SJ. Automated decision support in melanocytic lesion management. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(9):e0203459.PubMedPubMedCentral

Mar VJ, Soyer HP. Artificial intelligence for melanoma diagnosis: how can we deliver on the promise? Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1625–8.PubMed

Hogarty DT, Su JC, Phan K, Attia M, Hossny M, Nahavandi S, et al. Artificial intelligence in dermatology-where we are and the way to the future: a review. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2020;21(1):41–7.PubMed

Esteva A, Robicquet A, Ramsundar B, Kuleshov V, DePristo M, Chou K, et al. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nat Med. 2019;25(1):24–9.PubMed

Esteva A, Kuprel B, Novoa RA, Ko J, Swetter SM, Blau HM, et al. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Nature. 2017;542(7639):115–8.PubMedPubMedCentral

Haenssle HA, Fink C, Schneiderbauer R, Toberer F, Buhl T, Blum A, et al. Man against machine: diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for dermoscopic melanoma recognition in comparison to 58 dermatologists. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(8):1836–42.PubMed

Tschandl P, Rosendahl C, Akay BN, Argenziano G, Blum A, Braun RP, et al. Expert-level diagnosis of nonpigmented skin cancer by combined convolutional neural networks. JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(1):58–65.PubMed

10.

Marchetti MA, Codella NCF, Dusza SW, Gutman DA, Helba B, Kalloo A, et al. Results of the 2016 International Skin Imaging Collaboration International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging challenge: Comparison of the accuracy of computer algorithms to dermatologists for the diagnosis of melanoma from dermoscopic images. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(2):270 e1-277.

11.

Fujisawa Y, Otomo Y, Ogata Y, Nakamura Y, Fujita R, Ishitsuka Y, et al. Deep-learning-based, computer-aided classifier developed with a small dataset of clinical images surpasses board-certified dermatologists in skin tumour diagnosis. Br J Dermatol. 2019;180(2):373–81.PubMed

12.

Han SS, Kim MS, Lim W, Park GH, Park I, Chang SE. Classification of the clinical images for benign and malignant cutaneous tumors using a deep learning algorithm. J Investig Dermatol. 2018;138(7):1529–38.PubMed

13.

Brinker TJ, Hekler A, Enk AH, Berking C, Haferkamp S, Hauschild A, et al. Deep neural networks are superior to dermatologists in melanoma image classification. Eur J Cancer. 2019;119:11–7.PubMed

14.

Brinker TJ, Hekler A, Enk AH, Klode J, Hauschild A, Berking C, et al. A convolutional neural network trained with dermoscopic images performed on par with 145 dermatologists in a clinical melanoma image classification task. Eur J Cancer. 2019a;111:148–54.PubMed

15.

Brinker TJ, Hekler A, Enk AH, Klode J, Hauschild A, Berking C, et al. Deep learning outperformed 136 of 157 dermatologists in a head-to-head dermoscopic melanoma image classification task. Eur J Cancer. 2019b;113:47–54.PubMed

16.

Yu C, Yang S, Kim W, Jung J, Chung KY, Lee SW, et al. Acral melanoma detection using a convolutional neural network for dermoscopy images. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(3):e0193321.PubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Du-Harpur X, Watt FM, Luscombe NM, Lynch MD. What is AI? Applications of artificial intelligence to dermatology. Br J Dermatol. 2020;183:423–30.PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Nagendran M, Chen Y, Lovejoy CA, Gordon AC, Komorowski M, Harvey H, et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies. BMJ. 2020;368:m689.PubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Navarrete-Dechent C, Dusza SW, Liopyris K, Marghoob AA, Halpern AC, Marchetti MA. Automated dermatological diagnosis: hype or reality? J Investig Dermatol. 2018;138(10):2277–9.PubMed

20.

Gu Y, Ge Z, Bonnington CP, Zhou J. Progressive transfer learning and adversarial domain adaptation for cross-domain skin disease classification. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2020;24(5):1379–93.PubMed

21.

Tschandl P, Codella N, Akay BN, Argenziano G, Braun RP, Cabo H, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of human readers versus machine-learning algorithms for pigmented skin lesion classification: an open, web-based, international, diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(7):938–47.PubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Challen R, Denny J, Pitt M, Gompels L, Edwards T, Tsaneva-Atanasova K. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(3):231–7.PubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Adamson AS, Smith A. Machine learning and health care disparities in dermatology. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154(11):1247–8.PubMed

24.

Haenssle HA, Fink C, Toberer F, Winkler J, Stolz W, Deinlein T, et al. Man against machine reloaded: performance of a market-approved convolutional neural network in classifying a broad spectrum of skin lesions in comparison with 96 dermatologists working under less artificial conditions. Ann Oncol. 2020;31(1):137–43.PubMed

25.

Hekler A, Utikal JS, Enk AH, Hauschild A, Weichenthal M, Maron RC, et al. Superior skin cancer classification by the combination of human and artificial intelligence. Eur J Cancer. 2019;120:114–21.PubMed

26.

Tschandl P, Rinner C, Apalla Z, Argenziano G, Codella N, Halpern A, et al. Human-computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition. Nat Med. 2020;26(8):1229–34.PubMed

27.

Sujan M, Furniss D, Grundy K, Grundy H, Nelson D, Elliott M, et al. Human factors challenges for the safe use of artificial intelligence in patient care. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2019;26(1):e100081.PubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Epstein S. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. Am Psychol. 1994;49(8):709–24.PubMed

29.

Evans JS. In two minds: dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003;7(10):454–9.PubMed

30.

Stanovich KE, West RF. Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? Behav Brain Sci. 2000;23(5):645–65 (discussion 65–726).PubMed

31.

Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux; 2011.

32.

Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185(4157):1124–31.PubMed

33.

Norman GR, Monteiro SD, Sherbino J, Ilgen JS, Schmidt HG, Mamede S. The causes of errors in clinical reasoning: cognitive biases, knowledge deficits, and dual process thinking. Acad Med. 2017;92(1):23–30.PubMed

34.

van den Berge K, Mamede S. Cognitive diagnostic error in internal medicine. Eur J Intern Med. 2013;24(6):525–9.PubMed

35.

Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect. 2005;19(4):25–42.

36.

Pacini R, Epstein S. The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;76(6):972–87.PubMed

37.

Epstein S, Pacini R, Denes-Raj V, Heier H. Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;71(2):390–405.PubMed

38.

Moug SJ, Henderson N, Tiernan J, Bisset CN, Ferguson E, Harji D, et al. The colorectal surgeon’s personality may influence the rectal anastomotic decision. Colorectal Dis. 2018;20(11):970–80.PubMed

39.

Djulbegovic B, Beckstead JW, Elqayam S, Reljic T, Hozo I, Kumar A, et al. Evaluation of physicians’ cognitive styles. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(5):627–37.PubMed

40.

Tay SW, Ryan P, Ryan CA. Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students. Can Med Educ J. 2016;7(2):e97–103.PubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Brennan M, Puri S, Ozrazgat-Baslanti T, Feng Z, Ruppert M, Hashemighouchani H, et al. Comparing clinical judgment with the MySurgeryRisk algorithm for preoperative risk assessment: a pilot usability study. Surgery. 2019;165(5):1035–45.PubMed

42.

Sladek RM, Bond MJ, Huynh LT, Chew DP, Phillips PA. Thinking styles and doctors’ knowledge and behaviours relating to acute coronary syndromes guidelines. Implement Sci. 2008;3:23.PubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Calder LA, Forster AJ, Stiell IG, Carr LK, Brehaut JC, Perry JJ, et al. Experiential and rational decision making: a survey to determine how emergency physicians make clinical decisions. Emerg Med J. 2012;29(10):811–6.PubMed

44.

Sladek RM, Bond MJ, Phillips PA. Why don’t doctors wash their hands? A correlational study of thinking styles and hand hygiene. Am J Infect Control. 2008;36(6):399–406.PubMed

45.

Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic error in internal medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(13):1493–9.PubMed

46.

Singh H, Giardina TD, Meyer AN, Forjuoh SN, Reis MD, Thomas EJ. Types and origins of diagnostic errors in primary care settings. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(6):418–25.PubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Lowenstein EJ, Sidlow R. Cognitive and visual diagnostic errors in dermatology: part 1. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(6):1263–9.PubMed

48.

Cao LY, Taylor JS, Vidimos A. Patient safety in dermatology: a review of the literature. Dermatol Online J. 2010;16(1):3.PubMed

49.

Saposnik G, Redelmeier D, Ruff CC, Tobler PN. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):138.PubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Blumenthal-Barby JS, Krieger H. Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(4):539–57.

51.

Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):775–80.PubMed

52.

Royce CS, Hayes MM, Schwartzstein RM. Teaching critical thinking: a case for instruction in cognitive biases to reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient safety. Acad Med. 2019;94(2):187–94.PubMed

53.

Graber ML, Kissam S, Payne VL, Meyer AN, Sorensen A, Lenfestey N, et al. Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(7):535–57.PubMed

54.

Mamede S, Schmidt HG, Penaforte JC. Effects of reflective practice on the accuracy of medical diagnoses. Med Educ. 2008;42(5):468–75.PubMed

55.

Mamede S, van Gog T, van den Berge K, Rikers RM, van Saase JL, van Guldener C, et al. Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. JAMA. 2010;304(11):1198–203.PubMed

56.

Reilly JB, Ogdie AR, Von Feldt JM, Myers JS. Teaching about how doctors think: a longitudinal curriculum in cognitive bias and diagnostic error for residents. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(12):1044–50.PubMed

57.

Mamede S, de Carvalho-Filho MA, de Faria RMD, Franci D, Nunes M, Ribeiro LMC, et al. “Immunising” physicians against availability bias in diagnostic reasoning: a randomised controlled experiment. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29:550–9.PubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Bond RR, Novotny T, Andrsova I, Koc L, Sisakova M, Finlay D, et al. Automation bias in medicine: the influence of automated diagnoses on interpreter accuracy and uncertainty when reading electrocardiograms. J Electrocardiol. 2018;51(6S):S6–11.PubMed

59.

Tsai TL, Fridsma DB, Gatti G. Computer decision support as a source of interpretation error: the case of electrocardiograms. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(5):478–83.PubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Lyell D, Magrabi F, Raban MZ, Pont LG, Baysari MT, Day RO, et al. Automation bias in electronic prescribing. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2017;17(1):28.PubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Goddard K, Roudsari A, Wyatt JC. Automation bias: a systematic review of frequency, effect mediators, and mitigators. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(1):121–7.PubMed

62.

Lyell D, Coiera E. Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24(2):423–31.PubMed

63.

Lyell D, Magrabi F, Coiera E. The effect of cognitive load and task complexity on automation bias in electronic prescribing. Hum Factors. 2018;60(7):1008–21.PubMed

64.

Caliskan A, Bryson JJ, Narayanan A. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science. 2017;356(6334):183–6.PubMed

65.

Higgins S, Nazemi A, Feinstein S, Chow M, Wysong A. Clinical presentations of melanoma in African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians. Dermatol Surg. 2019;45(6):791–801.PubMed

66.

Chang JW. Acral melanoma: a unique disease in Asia. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(11):1272–3.PubMed

67.

Lee S, Chu YS, Yoo SK, Choi S, Choe SJ, Koh SB, et al. Augmented decision-making for acral lentiginous melanoma detection using deep convolutional neural networks. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(8):1842–50.PubMed

68.

Whitaker M. The surgical personality: does it exist? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2018;100(1):72–7.PubMed

69.

Surbeck W, Samuel R, Spieler D, Seifritz E, Scantamburlo G, Stienen MN, et al. Neurologists, neurosurgeons, and psychiatrists' personality traits: a comparison. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2020;162:(3) 461–8.PubMed

70.

Stienen MN, Scholtes F, Samuel R, Weil A, Weyerbrock A, Surbeck W. Different but similar: personality traits of surgeons and internists-results of a cross-sectional observational study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e021310.PubMedPubMedCentral

71.

McGreevy J, Wiebe D. A preliminary measurement of the surgical personality. Am J Surg. 2002;184(2):121–5.PubMed

72.

Bogacheva N, Kornilova T, Pavlova E. Relationships between medical doctors’ personality traits and their professional risk perception. Behav Sci (Basel). 2019;10(1):6.PubMedCentral

73.

Parker-Tomlin M, Boschen M, Glendon I, Morrissey S. Factors influencing health practitioners’ cognitive processing and decision-making style. J Interprof Care. 2019;33(5):546–57.PubMed

74.

Drosdeck JM, Osayi SN, Peterson LA, Yu L, Ellison EC, Muscarella P. Surgeon and nonsurgeon personalities at different career points. J Surg Res. 2015;196(1):60–6.PubMed

75.

Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WBJ. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J Res Pers. 2003;37:504–28.

76.

Yee LM, Liu LY, Grobman WA. The relationship between obstetricians’ cognitive and affective traits and their patients’ delivery outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(6):692 e1–6.PubMed

77.

Strout TD, Hillen M, Gutheil C, Anderson E, Hutchinson R, Ward H, et al. Tolerance of uncertainty: a systematic review of health and healthcare-related outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(9):1518–37.PubMed

78.

Fink C, Blum A, Buhl T, Mitteldorf C, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Deinlein T, et al. Diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network in the differentiation of combined naevi and melanomas. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(6):1355–61.PubMed

79.

Raphael AP, Soyer HP. Automated diagnosis: shedding the light on skin cancer. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(2):331–3.PubMed

80.

Khairat S, Coleman C, Ottmar P, Bice T, Koppel R, Carson SS. Physicians’ gender and their use of electronic health records: findings from a mixed-methods usability study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019;26(12):1505–14.PubMedPubMedCentral

81.

Jarrahi MH. Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Bus Horiz. 2018;61(4):577–86.

82.

Smart A. A multi-dimensional model of clinical utility. Int J Qual Health Care. 2006;18(5):377–82.PubMed

83.

Shortliffe EH, Sepulveda MJ. Clinical Decision Support in the Era of Artificial Intelligence. JAMA. 2018;320(21):2199–200.PubMed

84.

Budd S, Robinson EC, Kainz B. A Survey on Active Learning and Human-in-the-Loop Deep Learning for Medical Image Analysis. arXiv. 2019 (arXiv:1910.02923).

85.

Guo C, Pleiss G, Sun Y, Weinberger KQ. On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks. arXiv. 2017 (arXiv:1706.04599).

86.

Janda M, Soyer HP. Can clinical decision making be enhanced by artificial intelligence? Br J Dermatol. 2019;180(2):247–8.PubMed

87.

Zakhem GA, Fakhoury JW, Motosko CC, Ho RS. Characterizing the role of dermatologists in developing artificial intelligence for assessment of skin cancer: a systematic review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020.

88.

Hogarty DT, Mackey DA, Hewitt AW. Current state and future prospects of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019;47(1):128–39.PubMed

89.

Cho I, Bates DW. Behavioral economics interventions in clinical decision support systems. Yearb Med Inform. 2018;27(1):114–21.PubMedPubMedCentral

90.

Norton MI, Mochon D, Ariely D. The IKEA effect: when labor leads to love. J Consum Psychol. 2012;22(3):453–60.

91.

Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(3):464–71.PubMed

92.

Babbott S, Manwell LB, Brown R, Montague E, Williams E, Schwartz M, et al. Electronic medical records and physician stress in primary care: results from the MEMO Study. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(e1):e100–6.PubMed

93.

Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky C, Hasan O, Satele D, Sloan J, et al. Relationship between clerical burden and characteristics of the electronic environment with physician burnout and professional satisfaction. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91(7):836–48.PubMed

94.

Arndt BG, Beasley JW, Watkinson MD, Temte JL, Tuan WJ, Sinsky CA, et al. Tethered to the EHR: primary care physician workload assessment using EHR event log data and time-motion observations. Ann Fam Med. 2017;15(5):419–26.PubMedPubMedCentral

95.

Makoul G, Curry RH, Tang PC. The use of electronic medical records: communication patterns in outpatient encounters. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8(6):610–5.PubMedPubMedCentral

96.

Graber ML, Siegal D, Riah H, Johnston D, Kenyon K. Electronic health record-related events in medical malpractice claims. J Patient Saf. 2019;15(2):77–85.PubMed

97.

Middleton B, Bloomrosen M, Dente MA, Hashmat B, Koppel R, Overhage JM, et al. Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(e1):e2-8.PubMedPubMedCentral

98.

Nelson CA, Perez-Chada LM, Creadore A, Li SJ, Lo K, Manjaly P, et al. Patient perspectives on the use of artificial intelligence for skin cancer screening: a qualitative study. JAMA Dermatol. 2020.

Titel: The Importance of Incorporating Human Factors in the Design and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence for Skin Cancer Diagnosis in the Real World
verfasst von: Claire M. Felmingham
Nikki R. Adler
Zongyuan Ge
Rachael L. Morton
Monika Janda
Victoria J. Mar
Publikationsdatum: 22.12.2020
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: American Journal of Clinical Dermatology / Ausgabe 2/2021
Print ISSN: 1175-0561
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1888
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-020-00574-4

Leitlinien kompakt für die Dermatologie

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

^{Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag}

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Dermatologie

Sind Frauen die fähigeren Ärzte?

30.04.2024 Gendermedizin Nachrichten

Patienten, die von Ärztinnen behandelt werden, dürfen offenbar auf bessere Therapieergebnisse hoffen als Patienten von Ärzten. Besonders gilt das offenbar für weibliche Kranke, wie eine Studie zeigt.

Hirsutismus bei PCOS: Laser- und Lichttherapien helfen

26.04.2024 Hirsutismus Nachrichten

Laser- und Lichtbehandlungen können bei Frauen mit polyzystischem Ovarialsyndrom (PCOS) den übermäßigen Haarwuchs verringern und das Wohlbefinden verbessern – bei alleiniger Anwendung oder in Kombination mit Medikamenten.

Bei schweren Reaktionen auf Insektenstiche empfiehlt sich eine spezifische Immuntherapie

25.04.2024 Allergien und Intoleranzreaktionen Nachrichten

Insektenstiche sind bei Erwachsenen die häufigsten Auslöser einer Anaphylaxie. Einen wirksamen Schutz vor schweren anaphylaktischen Reaktionen bietet die allergenspezifische Immuntherapie. Jedoch kommt sie noch viel zu selten zum Einsatz.

Auf diese Krankheiten bei Geflüchteten sollten Sie vorbereitet sein

22.04.2024 DGIM 2024 Nachrichten

Um Menschen nach der Flucht aus einem Krisengebiet bestmöglich medizinisch betreuen zu können, ist es gut zu wissen, welche Erkrankungen im jeweiligen Herkunftsland häufig sind. Dabei hilft eine Internetseite der CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

Update Dermatologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2021

Pediatric Mastocytosis: Recognition and Management

Laser-Induced Chrysiasis: A Unique Adverse Event Associated With Q-Switched Lasers

Isotretinoin and Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Adults with Acne: A Population-based Retrospective Cohort Study

The Growing Problem of Antifungal Resistance in Onychomycosis and Other Superficial Mycoses

Reply to: Cohen and Ross: “Laser-Induced Chrysiasis: A Unique Adverse Event Associated with Q-Switched Lasers”