IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v36y2016i4p536-540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Wisdom of Crowds of Doctors

Author

Listed:
  • Michael W. Kattan
  • Colin O’Rourke
  • Changhong Yu
  • Kevin Chagin

Abstract

Background. Evidence suggests that the average prediction across groups is more accurate than for individuals. Our goals were therefore to investigate accuracy of the average predictions for groups of clinicians and to compare this accuracy with a published statistical prediction model. Methods. Twenty-four expert clinicians attending an advisory board meeting were asked to make predictions for 25 patients from a research registry regarding the probability of having a positive bone scan 1 year from today if left untreated. Comparisons were made between the accuracy of average responses and that of an appropriate previously published statistical prediction model. Results. This study suggests that the mean of the clinicians’ predictions can quickly approach the accuracy of the best clinician using as few as 5 clinicians. When all 24 clinicians’ predictions were averaged, the concordance index reached 0.750, still far below that of the published statistical model with 0.812. Conclusions. Averaging clinician predictions may have merit over individual clinician predictions but still not reasonably replace a carefully built statistical model. However, averaging clinician predictions could prove helpful in situations where statistical models do not yet exist or where existing models are inadequate.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael W. Kattan & Colin O’Rourke & Changhong Yu & Kevin Chagin, 2016. "The Wisdom of Crowds of Doctors," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 536-540, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:4:p:536-540
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X15581615
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X15581615
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X15581615?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:sae:medema:v:36:y:2016:i:4:p:536-540. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.