Objective: This study aims to improve the reliability and robustness of medical named entity recognition (NER) in Chinese atopic dermatitis (AD) clinical texts through explanation-guided learning. Methods: We propose a stability and boundary-aware explanation-guided NER framework. Perturbation-based analysis is used to evaluate explanation stability and entity boundary sensitivity. An adaptive fusion strategy dynamically combines local and global explanation to generate more reliable token-level explanations. The fused explanation signals are further incorporated into model training through stability, boundary-aware, and consistency constraints. Results: Experiments on Chinese AD NER datasets show that the proposed framework improves explanation robustness and achieves consistent performance gains across multiple NER models. The adaptive fusion strategy also provides more stable explanations and stronger boundary perception than individual explanation methods. Conclusion: The proposed method effectively integrates reliable explanation signals into medical NER training, improving both recognition performance and explanation reliability. The framework provides a practical and generalizable solution for explainable medical NER and offers reliable support for downstream clinical decision-making and medical knowledge applications.
Background: Dermatology AI has mainly focused on image-based diagnosis, while chronic disease workflows have received less attention. We surveyed Indian dermatologists to map routine clinical challenges, with a focus on atopic dermatitis (AD), and assess current AI use. Methods: A nationwide cross-sectional survey commissioned by the Society for Eczema Studies included 377 practicing Indian dermatologists. The survey assessed clinical challenges, AD workflow barriers, AI use, adoption barriers, and ethical concerns. Analyses used descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, false discovery rate correction, and multivariable logistic regression. Results: Patient adherence (61.3%) and treatment planning in difficult or refractory cases (57.0%) were reported more often than diagnostic uncertainty (48.0%). In AD care, severity scoring was reported as a challenge by 47.7% and had the lowest satisfaction among measured workflow areas. Current AI use was reported by 49.9%, most often involving general large language models for literature synthesis, documentation, and academic tasks rather than specialized image analysis. Barriers differed by experience: dermatologists with more than 20 years of practice more often cited lack of training, while those with 5 years or less more often cited lack of clinical utility after trying AI tools. AI users were more likely than non-users to report concern about patient self-misdiagnosis and anxiety, which remained significant after adjustment for experience and academic affiliation. Conclusion: Respondents reported using general-purpose AI mainly for cognitive and administrative tasks, while their clinical needs centered on chronic disease management and AD workflow support. Clinician-supervised workflow tools may be more useful than standalone diagnostic applications.