We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies. Cookie Policy.

Features Partner Sites Information LinkXpress
Sign In
Advertise with Us
PURITAN MEDICAL

Download Mobile App




Events

09 Apr 2024 - 12 Apr 2024
15 Apr 2024 - 17 Apr 2024
23 Apr 2024 - 26 Apr 2024

Comparison Reveals Human Physicians Outperform Virtual Diagnosticians

By LabMedica International staff writers
Posted on 26 Oct 2016
Print article
Image: A study comparing diagnostic accuracy of physicians versus symptom checker apps and Internet programs suggests that reliable computer diagnostics is as yet a distant goal (Photo courtesy of Harvard University Medical School).
Image: A study comparing diagnostic accuracy of physicians versus symptom checker apps and Internet programs suggests that reliable computer diagnostics is as yet a distant goal (Photo courtesy of Harvard University Medical School).
Increasingly powerful computers using ever-more sophisticated programs are challenging human supremacy in diverse areas. Can current digital diagnostics programs outperform, or even match, human physicians? The answer, according to a new study, is still “far from it.”

The findings of the study, led by researchers at Harvard University Medical School (Boston, MA, USA), show that physicians’ performance is vastly superior as they made a correct diagnosis more than 2x as often as 23 commonly used symptom-checkers. The analysis is believed to be the first direct comparison between human-made and computer-based diagnoses.

Diagnostic errors stem from failure to recognize a disease or to do so in a timely manner. Physicians make such errors roughly 10-15% of the time, researchers say. Over the last two decades, computer-based checklists and other digital apps have been increasingly used to reduce medication errors or streamline infection-prevention protocols. Lately, experts have wondered whether computers might also help improve clinical diagnoses and reduce diagnostic errors. Many people use apps or Internet programs to check their symptoms or to self-diagnose, yet how these computerized symptom-checkers fare against physicians has not been well studied.

In the study, 234 internal medicine physicians were asked to evaluate 45 clinical cases, involving both common and uncommon conditions with varying degrees of severity. For each scenario, physicians had to identify the most likely diagnosis along with two additional possible diagnoses. Each clinical vignette was solved by at least 20 physicians.

The physicians outperformed the symptom-checker apps, listing the correct diagnosis first 72% of the time, compared with 34% of the time for the digital platforms. 84% of clinicians listed the correct diagnosis in the top 3 possibilities, compared with 51% for the digital symptom-checkers. The difference between physician and computer performance was most dramatic in more severe and less common conditions, and smaller for less acute and more common illnesses.

“While the computer programs were clearly inferior to physicians in terms of diagnostic accuracy, it will be critical to study future generations of computer programs that may be more accurate,” said senior investigator Ateev Mehrotra, associate professor of healthcare policy HMS.

Despite outperforming the machines, physicians still made errors in about 15% of cases. Developing computer-based algorithms to be used in conjunction with human decision-making may help further reduce diagnostic errors. “Clinical diagnosis is currently as much art as it is science, but there is great promise for technology to help augment clinical diagnoses,” said Prof. Mehrotra, “That is the true value proposition of these tools.”

The study, by Semigran HL et al, was published online October 10, 2016, in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

Related Links:
Harvard University Medical School


Platinum Member
COVID-19 Rapid Test
OSOM COVID-19 Antigen Rapid Test
Specimen Collection & Transport
Complement 3 (C3) Test
GPP-100 C3 Kit
New
Gold Member
Magnetic Bead Separation Modules
MAG and HEATMAG

Print article

Channels

Clinical Chemistry

view channel
Image: Reaching speeds up to 6,000 RPM, this centrifuge forms the basis for a new type of inexpensive, POC biomedical test (Photo courtesy of Duke University)

POC Biomedical Test Spins Water Droplet Using Sound Waves for Cancer Detection

Exosomes, tiny cellular bioparticles carrying a specific set of proteins, lipids, and genetic materials, play a crucial role in cell communication and hold promise for non-invasive diagnostics.... Read more

Molecular Diagnostics

view channel
Image: MOF materials efficiently enrich cfDNA and cfRNA in blood through simple operational process (Photo courtesy of Science China Press)

Blood Circulating Nucleic Acid Enrichment Technique Enables Non-Invasive Liver Cancer Diagnosis

The ability to diagnose diseases early can significantly enhance the effectiveness of clinical treatments and improve survival rates. One promising approach for non-invasive early diagnosis is the use... Read more

Hematology

view channel
Image: The low-cost portable device rapidly identifies chemotherapy patients at risk of sepsis (Photo courtesy of 52North Health)

POC Finger-Prick Blood Test Determines Risk of Neutropenic Sepsis in Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy

Neutropenia, a decrease in neutrophils (a type of white blood cell crucial for fighting infections), is a frequent side effect of certain cancer treatments. This condition elevates the risk of infections,... Read more

Pathology

view channel
Image: The OvaCis Rapid Test discriminates benign from malignant epithelial ovarian cysts (Photo courtesy of INEX)

Intra-Operative POC Device Distinguishes Between Benign and Malignant Ovarian Cysts within 15 Minutes

Ovarian cysts represent a significant health issue for women globally, with up to 10% experiencing this condition at some point in their lives. These cysts form when fluid collects within a thin membrane... Read more
Copyright © 2000-2024 Globetech Media. All rights reserved.