
Google Research
· 1 min read
Research into how AI can help users understand skin conditions
More than half of adults use the Internet for health information, and one-third turn to artificial intelligence (AI). However, access to information does not mean that it is easy to understand or correctly interpreted. In short, the human component of AI for health information remains important to research to help people benefit from better health information.
Specifically, this is important in the space of dermatology (skin, hair, nails; henceforth “skin” for brevity) because people have trouble looking for the right information online related to their skin concern. For instance, you may notice “red dots on legs,” but not have the background knowledge to specifically search for “palpable purpura”.
Over the years, we have built a technical foundation in this area, including developing AI models to inform differential diagnoses, performing validation of model generalization, and releasing datasets like SCIN to help clinicians and researchers. However, the most significant impact can only be realized by supporting the decision-making of people who have skin concerns through providing high-quality information.
To do this right, understanding how humans engage with AI to inform their decisions is critical. Previous studies evaluating non-AI tools have shown that while people might get better at identifying a condition using the internet, they don't necessarily get better at deciding what next steps to take. We need to ensure that as AI tools become available, we carefully study and improve upon the human factors to support people in making better decisions.
Evaluating consumer understanding at scale
Participants were randomized into three groups to research the cases:
We found that AI assistance provided a statistically significant improvement for consumer understanding. When using the AI tool, participants were more willing to attempt to name the condition shown (over 62%) compared to the control group using standard search tools (41%).
Original source
This story was published by Google Research. SyncAI.news shows a preview; the complete article is on the publisher's site.
Read the full story on research.google


