IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i4p2086-d503105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy of Artificial-Intelligence-Driven Differential-Diagnosis List on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Physicians: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Study

Author

Listed:
  • Yukinori Harada

    (Department of General Internal Medicine, Nagano Chuo Hospital, Nagano 380-0814, Japan
    Department of Diagnostic and Generalist Medicine, Dokkyo Medical University, Tochigi 321-0293, Japan)

  • Shinichi Katsukura

    (Department of Diagnostic and Generalist Medicine, Dokkyo Medical University, Tochigi 321-0293, Japan)

  • Ren Kawamura

    (Department of Diagnostic and Generalist Medicine, Dokkyo Medical University, Tochigi 321-0293, Japan)

  • Taro Shimizu

    (Department of Diagnostic and Generalist Medicine, Dokkyo Medical University, Tochigi 321-0293, Japan)

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven automated medical-history-taking systems with AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists on physicians’ diagnostic accuracy was shown. However, considering the negative effects of AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists such as omission (physicians reject a correct diagnosis suggested by AI) and commission (physicians accept an incorrect diagnosis suggested by AI) errors, the efficacy of AI-driven automated medical-history-taking systems without AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists on physicians’ diagnostic accuracy should be evaluated. Objective: The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of AI-driven automated medical-history-taking systems with or without AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists on physicians’ diagnostic accuracy. Methods: This randomized controlled study was conducted in January 2021 and included 22 physicians working at a university hospital. Participants were required to read 16 clinical vignettes in which the AI-driven medical history of real patients generated up to three differential diagnoses per case. Participants were divided into two groups: with and without an AI-driven differential-diagnosis list. Results: There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two groups (57.4% vs. 56.3%, respectively; p = 0.91). Vignettes that included a correct diagnosis in the AI-generated list showed the greatest positive effect on physicians’ diagnostic accuracy (adjusted odds ratio 7.68; 95% CI 4.68–12.58; p < 0.001). In the group with AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists, 15.9% of diagnoses were omission errors and 14.8% were commission errors. Conclusions: Physicians’ diagnostic accuracy using AI-driven automated medical history did not differ between the groups with and without AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists.

Suggested Citation

  • Yukinori Harada & Shinichi Katsukura & Ren Kawamura & Taro Shimizu, 2021. "Efficacy of Artificial-Intelligence-Driven Differential-Diagnosis List on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Physicians: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-10, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:2086-:d:503105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/2086/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/2086/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Taku Harada & Taiju Miyagami & Kotaro Kunitomo & Taro Shimizu, 2021. "Clinical Decision Support Systems for Diagnosis in Primary Care: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Yukinori Harada & Shinichi Katsukura & Ren Kawamura & Taro Shimizu, 2021. "Effects of a Differential Diagnosis List of Artificial Intelligence on Differential Diagnoses by Physicians: An Exploratory Analysis of Data from a Randomized Controlled Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-8, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:2086-:d:503105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.