Background and Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) has transitioned to an integral part of dermatology in only few years, yet perceptions of its use vary widely, reflecting diverse hopes, concerns, and perceived clinical utility. Materials and Methods: In this study, 300 dermatologists from 13 countries, representing a range of experience levels and AI usage statuses, were surveyed regarding the characteristics and applications of AI in dermatology. Results: Among respondents, 61.33% reported having used AI tools in clinical practice. Adoption of AI was observed across all age groups, countries, and experience levels. Analysis of the types of AI tools used revealed a strong reliance on general-purpose large language models (LLMs), with chatbots being the most frequently cited category, utilized by 58.15% of users. Younger clinicians demonstrated a significant preference for chatbots (p < 0.05). Country-specific patterns in AI adoption were also noted. The most highly rated expected benefit of AI in dermatology was improved diagnostic accuracy, while the primary concern centered on regulatory and ethical limitations, suggesting that the “AI revolution” in dermatology is currently constrained less by technical barriers and more by regulation considerations. Use of consent forms when AI use takes place was more frequently reported as mandatory by dermatologists who had never used AI, reflecting heightened caution among non-users (p = 0.03). Additionally, 75% of respondents agreed that formal training in AI is necessary, highlighting a significant gap in traditional medical education regarding emerging technologies.

Background and Objectives: Dermatology relies on a complex terminology encompassing lesion types, distribution patterns, colors, and specialized sites such as hair and nails, while dermoscopy adds an additional descriptive framework, making interpretation subjective and challenging. Our study aims to evaluate the ability of a chatbot (Gemini 2) to generate dermatology descriptions across multiple languages and image types, and to assess the influence of prompt language on readability, completeness, and terminology consistency. Our research is based on the concept that non-English prompts are not mere translations of the English prompts but are independently generated texts that reflect medical and dermatological knowledge learned from non-English material used in the chatbot’s training. Materials and Methods: Five macroscopic and five dermoscopic images of common skin lesions were used. Images were uploaded to Gemini 2 with language-specific prompts requesting short paragraphs describing visible features and possible diagnoses. A total of 2400 outputs were analyzed for readability using LIX score and CLEAR (comprehensiveness, accuracy, evidence-based content, appropriateness, and relevance) assessment, while terminology consistency was evaluated via SNOMED CT mapping across English, French, German, and Greek outputs. Results: English and French descriptions were found to be harder to read and more sophisticated, while SNOMED CT mapping revealed the largest terminology mismatch in German and the smallest in French. English texts and macroscopic images achieved the highest accuracy, completeness, and readability based on CLEAR assessment, whereas dermoscopic images and non-English texts presented greater challenges. Conclusions: Overall, partial terminology inconsistencies and cross-lingual variations highlighted that the language of the prompt plays a critical role in shaping AI-generated dermatology descriptions.