|
 In a head-to-head comparison, human doctors with access to the same
information about medical history and symptoms as was put into a
symptom checker got the diagnosis right 72 percent of the time,
compared to 34 percent for the apps.
The 23 online symptom checkers, some accessed via websites and
others available as apps, included those offered by Web MD and the
Mayo Clinic in the U.S. and the Isabel Symptom Checker in the U.K.
“The current symptom checkers, I was not surprised do not outperform
doctors,” said senior author Dr. Ateev Mehrotra of Harvard Medical
School in Boston.
But in reality computers and human doctors may both be involved in a
diagnosis, rather than pitted against each other, Mehrotra told
Reuters Health.
The researchers used a web platform called Human Dx to distribute 45
clinical vignettes - sets of medical history and symptom information
- to 234 physicians. Doctors could not do a physical examination on
the hypothetical patient or run tests, they had only the information
provided.
Fifteen vignettes described acute conditions, 15 were moderately
serious and 15 required low-levels of care. Most described commonly
diagnosed conditions, while 19 described uncommon conditions.
Doctors submitted their answers as free text responses with
potential diagnoses ranked in order of likelihood.
Compared to putting the same information into symptom checkers,
physicians ranked the correct diagnosis first more often for every
case.
Doctors also got it right more often for the more serious conditions
and the more uncommon diagnoses, while computer algorithms were
better at spotting less serious conditions and more common
diagnoses, according to the results published in a research letter
in JAMA Internal Medicine.
[to top of second column] |
“In medical school, we are taught to consider broad differential
diagnoses that include rare conditions, and to consider
life-threatening diagnoses,” said Dr. Andrew M. Fine of Boston
Children’s Hospital, who was not part of the new study. “National
board exams also assess our abilities to recognize rare and ‘can't
miss’ diagnoses, so perhaps the clinicians have been conditioned to
look for these diagnoses,” he said.
“Physicians do get it wrong 10 to 15 percent of the time, so maybe
if computers were augmenting them the outcome would be better,”
Mehrotra said.
“In a real-world setting, I could envision MD plus algorithm vs MD
alone,” Fine told Reuters Health by email. “The algorithms will rely
on a clinician to input physical exam findings in a real-world
setting, and so the computer algorithm alone could not go head to
head with a clinician.”
Computers may be better suited to amend or reorder diagnoses based
on new information in certain settings, like the emergency room, he
added.
“Patients need to know that most (symptom checkers) have limited
accuracy, and should not be considered a substitute for a history
and physical examination by a healthcare provider,” said Dr. Leslie
J. Bisson of the University at Buffalo department of orthopedics in
Amherst, New York, who was not part of the new study.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/2e78GBa JAMA Internal Medicine, online October
10, 2016.
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
