However, Emineo, what about using artificial intelligence for the physician? Would that be a more safe option or do we have special doctor system already?

Yeah, that's a very important point.

So when we are talking about the physicians, we have a wonderful tool that when well utilized, it can help us to provide the highest evidence possible.

As you mentioned, Tosin, we are still the gatekeeper of this kind of information.

So like you said, even if a physician go online and see that omalizumab is the third line, there is a mistake on that kind of statement.

And we are able to select and filter really well what's what's happening there are even better structures nowadays about the um to find like a data that's a solid data for instance we have open evidence that is kind of a very interesting fast way where we can access a magical data publications in a very fast way so many times when I have a situation specifically that happen every day, should I use, for instance, a couple of days ago, I had a patient that was questioned, she's going to get pregnant and if she has hives and she should be used omalizumab or not, and then we can provide some information and check clearly what is available in the literature.

But again, we have to remember that there is a liability, especially when we talk about this to the countries, in many countries where the physician is still responsible for the information.

What do you think? In research, where's the position of AI in our urticaria research, in our urticaria centers work, in our UCAR work and the upcoming global urticaria forum? Herminio, what do you think?